SPECIAL/  PERMISSION 
INaSRL/BRARY  LOAN 

SAN  FRANIISHD  PUBLIC  LIBRARY 

PLEASE  RETURN  THIS  BOOK  TO  THE 

INTERLIBRAHY  LOAN  DEPARTMENT 

GENERAL  REFERENCE  DESK 


BOOK:  m 

DATE  DUE:  "TO -I*-) 
PATRON  : 


STEPHEN"    M.    WHITE. 


STEPHEN  M.  WHITE 


,     CITIZEN, 
HI  R,      S  K  N  A  T  O  R. 


HIS  LIFE  AJSTD  HIS  WORK 


A    CHARACTER    SKETCH 

LEROY  K. 


TOGHTHHJR  WITH   HIS 

PRINCIPAL    PUBLIC    ADDRESSES. 

COMPILED    BY 
ROBERT   T^OODL^VlSr 

His  Former  Private  Secretary, 


^A^TX 

Ht 

•F.RS1TYJ 

IN  TWO   VOLUMES. 


THE   TIMES-MIRROR    CO]VII3A.NY, 
LOS 

1OO3. 


v  ( 


I. 


181438 


INTRODUCTION 


America's  pride  is  in  her  men  —  self-made  or  born  with  a  noble 
and  distinguished  ancestry  —  it  is  all  quite  the  same.  Pride  of  fam 
ily  is  a  characteristic  of  the  world's  older  lands,  but  in  this  great  free 
republic  where  every  boy  born  under  the  flag  has  an  equal  chance  with 
his  fellows,  and  must  achieve  greatly  if  he  would  become  great,  fam 
ily  counts  of  small  moment.  We  have  seen  boys  stepping  across  the 
humblest  thresholds  to  become  the  mightiest  of  men  in  the  affairs  of 
the  nation  and  of  the  world.  We  have  seen  the  pampered  off-springs 
of  the  powerful  and  influential  and  the  wealthy  passed  at  a  bound  by 
those  who  so  often  struggled  to  the  front  along  a  pathway  filled  with 
obstacles  fit  to  daunt  the  stoutest  heart,  that  the  American  people  have 
quite  come  to  believe  that  there  is  no  height  to  which  the  youth  of  this 
republic  may  not  attain  provided  he  be  not  handicapped  with  too  many 
advantages.  Stephen  Mallory  White,  the  brightest  name  in  Califor 
nia's  galaxy  of  those  born  upon  her  soil,  was  essentially  a  self-made 
man,  albeit  his  ancestry  was  neither  humble  nor  of  noble  name. 

His  father,  William  F.  White,  came  to  the  United  States  with 
his  parents  from  Ireland  when  an  infant  of  four  years.  He  grew  up 
on  a  Pennsylvania  farm,  emigrated  to  Western  New  York,  later  mov 
ing  to  the  City  of  New  York  and  becoming  the  publisher  of  a  weekly 
newspaper.  Subsequently  he  was  in  the  employ  of  the  government  in 
the  New  York  Custom  House. 

Mr.  White's  mother  was  Fannie  J.  Russell.  She  was  left  an  or 
phan  at  an  early  age,  and  when  a  small  child  was  taken  to  Florida  in 
the  family  of  her  cousin,  Stephen  R.  Mallory,  by  whom  she  was  raised 
and  educated.  Mr.  Mallory  represented  Florida  in  the  United  States 
Senate  and  was  a  member  of  the  Confederate  Cabinet  during  the 
great  war  between  the  States.  It  was  for  Stephen  Mallory  that  Sena 
tor  White  was  named.  It  was  while  Fannie  Russell  was  being  edu 
cated  in  New  York  City  that  she  met  William  F.  White,  and  their 
marriage  took  place  in  Savannah,  Ga.,  just  at  the  time  that  the  Cali 
fornia  gold  excitement  was  agitating  the  sturdy  youth  of  the  world. 
Fired  by  the  marvelous  tales  told  of  the  golden  state,  William  F. 
White,  with  his  faithful  wife,  emigrated  to  the  coast,  arriving  in  San 
Francisco  in  the  month  of  January,  1849.  He  became  a  merchant  in 
that  city,  and  in  a  little  cottage  on  Taylor  Street,  between  Turk  Street 
and  Golden  Gate  Avenue,  Stephen  Mallory  White  was  born  on  the 
I9th  day  of  January,  1853.  This  cottage  was  built  in  1850,  and  re- 


6  SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

mained  in  place  until  the  year  1881,  when  it  was  crowded  out  by  the 
advancement  of  business  structures. 

Shortly  after  the  birth  of  his  son,  who  later  became  so  notable  a 

character   in   the   State  and   the  nation,   William   F.   White   removed 

with  his  family  to  the  Pajaro  Valley  in  Santa  Cruz  County,  engaged  in 

farming,  established  a  home,  ideal  in  character  and  raised  his  children 

—  two  sons  and  six  daughters. 

William  F.  White  had  much  more  than  average  literary  ability 
and  was  a  frequent  contributor  to  the  press  of  the  State.  He  was 
the  author  of  an  interesting  work,  "  Pioneer  Times  in,  California," 
which  he  published  under  the  nom  de  plume  of  "  William  Gray."  He 
was  a  member  of  the  famous  constitutional  convention  of  1878,  which 
gave  to  California  the  basic  instrument  of  the  State  government  that 
is  now  in  force,  and  by  appointment  of  William  Irwin,  then  Governor, 
was,  for  a  number  of  years,  State  Bank  Commissioner. 

The  political  contest  in  California  in  the  year  1879  was  one  of 
the  most  notable  in  its  history.  It  was  a  triangulated  affair  —  Repub 
lican,  Democrat  and  Workingmen.  William  F.  White  was  the  Work- 
ingmen's  candidate  for  governor  in  that  contest,  and  finished  second 
in  the  race.  He  died  at  Oakland,  California,  where  he  then  resided, 
on  May  16,  1890,  in.  his  74th  year. 

By  this  brief  reference  to  the  immediate  ancestry  of  Senator 
White  it  will  be  seen  that  he  was  neither  of  humble  nor  of  noble  birth. 
The  stock  from  which  he  sprang  was  good,  like  himself.  His  father, 
though  born  on  that  rare  little  British  isle  which  has  produced  so 
many  great  men,  was  thoroughly  American.  His  mother  was  a  ster 
ling  character  and  their  boy  possessed  attributes  of  both  parents  which 
his  career  discloses  as  the  story  of  his  gallant  life  unfolds. 

Senator  White  was  a  sturdy  American  boy,  square,  upright,  true 
as  steel,  faithful,  loyal  and  brave.  Just  such  a  boy  as  makes  a  good 
man.  He  was  sent  to  a  private  school  in  Oakland  at  the  age  of  thir 
teen,  where  he  remained  for  three  years.  In  his  previous  boyhood  he 
was  under  the  tutelage  of  his  father's  sister,  a  woman  of  rare  mind 
and  superb  attainments.  At  sixteen  he  was  sent  to  St.  Ignatius  Col 
lege,  San  Francisco,  for  a  year  and  a  half,  thence  to  Santa  Clara  Col 
lege,  his  alma  mater,  from  which  he  graduated  in  1871.  For  ten 
months  after  his  graduation  he  "  read  law  "  in  the  office  of  A.  W. 
Blair  in  Watsonville,  about  one  year  with  Albert  Hagan  in  the  city  of 
Santa  Cruz,  and  some  eight  months  with  C.  B.  Younger  of  the  same 
place.  On  April  14,  1874,  he  was  admitted  to  the  bar  of  the  Supreme 
Court  at  Sacramento,  and  almost  immediately  thereafter  removed  to 
the  city  of  Los  Angeles,  where  his  life  work  began,  where  he  achieved 
honors  and  distinction  and  where  he  dropped  asleep  after  a  brief  life 
filled  with  goodness,  kindness  and  blessings  to  his  fellowmen. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  7 

As  was  stated  at  the  outset  of  this  sketch,  Senator  White  was  es 
sentially  a  self-made  man.  He  came  to  Los  Angeles  rich  in  nobility  of 
character  and  natural  ability,  but  poor  in  pocket.  But  a  short  time 
after  taking  up  his  abode  in  the  Southern  City  he  became  acquainted 
with  James  C.  Kays,  now  one  of  the  city's  bankers  and  leading  char 
acters  in  the  business  and  political  world.  Mr.  Kays  was  occupying  a 
room  on  Main  Street  at  a  point  opposite  where  Temple  Street  intersects 
that  thoroughfare  and  where  the  Lanfranco  building  now  stands.  Mr. 
White  was  lonesome,  more  or  less  homesick,  and  without  habitation 
to  his  liking.  Mr.  Kays  proposed  that  they  enter  into  partnership  in 
the  occupancy  of  his  quarters,  but  the  furnishings  were  few  and  the 
joint  exchequer  vastly  lean.  Mr.  White,  however,  jumped  at  the  op 
portunity  to  acquire  an  abiding  place,  yet  how  he  was  to  secure  a  bed 
on  which  to  sleep,  a  bowl  in  which  to  wash,  and  a  mirror  before 
which  to  comb  his  leonine  locks  was  the  problem  before  the  house. 
The  two  young  men,  both  then  starting  out  in  life,  debated  the  great 
question  carefully,  and  finally  decided  to  beard  "  Dotter  &  Bradley," 
a  then  famous  firm  of  furniture  dealers,  in  their  lair.  Their  faces 
proved  their  fortune,  for  they  secured  furniture  for  Senator  White's 
share  of  the  abode  to  the  amount  of  $50  on  credit,  and  there  com 
menced  a  comradeship  within  the  same  four  walls  which  continued 
for  nine  years,  or  until  Mr.  White  became  a  benedict  through  his  wed 
ding  of  Hortense  Sacriste,  one  of  the  belles  of  the  Southern  metropo 
lis.  This  event  occurred  at  the  Cathedral  on  Main  Street  on  June  5, 
1883,  and  °f  which  one  of  the  local  papers  of  the  day  said:  "The 
prominence  and  the  great  popularity  of  the  groom,  added  to  the  beauty 
of  the  lovely  young  bride,  made  this  a  memorable  ceremony,  which  the 
earliness  of  the  hour  (9  A.  M.)  did  not  prevent  a  large  concourse  from 
attending."  The  issue  of  this  marriage  was  William  S.,  Estelle,  Hor 
tense  and  Gerald  Griffin  White,  aged  16,  14,  12  and  6  years,  respect 
ively,  at  the  time  of  Senator  White's  death. 

At  the  time  when  Senator  White  entered  upon  his  labors  at  the 
bar  of  Los  Angeles  it  comprised  many  of  the  ablest  lawyers  in  Cali 
fornia,  but  the  fledgeling  from  Santa  Clara  College  fought  his  way  to 
the  front  with  dash  and  aplomb.  The  veterans  soon  learned  that  the 
youngster  was  an  adept  in  strategy,  a  master  in  debate,  a  power  be 
fore  a  jury.  He  held  his  ground  against  the  best  of  them.  He  fought 
his  cases  with  skill,  adroitness,  energy  and  audacity.  He  was  quick 
to  take  advantage  of  opportunity,  but  with  such  cleverness  and 
savoir-faire  as  not  to  give  offense.  He  won  his  cases  and  he  grew  in 
standing  and  popularity. 

In  the  years  1883-84  Mr.  White  served  as  District  Attorney  of 
Los  Angeles  County,  receiving  more  votes  for  that  office  than  any 
other  candidate  on  the  Democratic  ticket  for  either  a  State,  County, 


8  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

or  Township  office.  His  administration  of  this  office  was  brilliant 
and  able  to  a  degree.  He  became  a  terror  to  evil  doers  in  all  their 
various  varieties.  His  prosecution  of  a  case  spelled  conviction  for  the 
guilty.  It  is  no  disparagement  of  other  able  men  to  say  that  Stephen 
M.  White  was  far  and  away  the  most  efficient  District  Attorney  that 
Los  Angeles  County  ever  had.  His  course  in  that  important  local 
office  secured  for  him  the  affectionate  admiration  of  his  fellow  citizens 
of  all  parties  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  it  was  his  forcefulness 
and  ability  that  held  back  the  tide  of  Republicanism  in  Los  Angeles 
County  for  many  years. 

In  the  year  1886  Mr.  White  was  elected  State  Senator  from  the 
district  in  California  including  the  city  of  Los  Angeles,  serving  four 
years  with  splendid  efficiency  and  ability.  As  a  writer  said  of  him 
the  day  after  his  death:  "Many  wise  and  just  laws  were  framed  by 
his  hand  and  guided  through  the  Legislature  by  his  energy  and  wis 
dom."  By  the  death  of  Governor  Washington  Bartlett  soon  after  his 
election  R.  W7.  Waterman  became  Governor.  This  event  made  Sena 
tor  White  presiding  officer  of  the  Senate  in  the  first  session,  and 
Lieutenant  Governor  in  the  second. 

A  born  parliamentarian,  frank,  fair  and  kindly,  Senator  White 
filled  these  important  positions  with  the  same  conspicuous  ability,  and 
that  rare  fidelity  which  was  characteristic  of  the  man  everywhere  and 
always. 

While  an  occupant  of  the  Senatorial  office  Mr.  White  made  his 
famous  and  memorable  canvass  of  the  State  for  the  United  States 
Senate.  It  was  in  a  measure,  a  unique  canvass,  for  Mr.  White  boldly 
announced  his  candidacy  and  made  his  fight,  as  he  made  all  his  fights, 
in  the  open.  It  was  this  canvass  that  disclosed  to  California  in  gen 
eral  just  how  great  and  brave  and  manly  Stephen  M.  White  was.  It 
disclosed,  too,  the  latent  powers  in  the  man.  It  demonstrated  to  the 
people  of  the  west  that  there  was  a  giant  among  them. 

It  was  a  struggle  against  the  odds  of  wealth  and  unscrupulous- 
ness  and  corruption.  The  fruitage  of  the  great  canvass  was  not  im 
mediate,  but  it  was  the  sowing  of  good  seed  upon  fertile  soil,  for  in 
1893,  with  a  vacancy  in  the  national  Senatorial  office,  he  was  trium 
phantly  elected  United  States  Senator  on  the  first  ballot.  The  Legis 
lature  which  convened  in  1893  consisted  of  59  Democrats,  51  Repub 
licans,  8  Populists,  i  non-partisan,  and  I  Independent.  When  the 
joint  session  of  the  two  houses  was  held,  Mr.  White  received  61 
votes  which  represented  the  entire  Democratic  membership,  i  non- 
partisan  and  i  Populist. 

He  took  his  seat  March  4,  1893  and,  of  his  career  in  that  great 
office,  within  the  covers  of  this  volume  there  is  preserved  a  part  of 
the  matchless  record. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  9 

And  beyond  that  record  of  his  own  powerful  phrases,  his  rapier- 
like  thrusts  at  wrong,  his  appeals  to  the  better  judgment  of  his  coun 
trymen  and  his  splendid  fidelity  to  their  interests  it  is  but  justice  to  the 
memory  of  California's  most  famous  native  son  to  go  outside  the  rec 
ord  and  say  that  few  men  who  have  served  in  the  great  parliament  of 
the  United  States  ever  before  took  so  advanced  a  position  in  the  Sen 
ate  in  so  short  a  time.  Writing  to  the  author  of  this  all  too  inadequate 
biography  of  Senator  White,  his  former  secretary,  and  the  compiler 
of  the  speeches  and  orations  contained  in  this  volume,  says :  "  His 
ability,  his  eloquence,  his  fairness,  were  quickly  recognized,  and  when 
he  spoke  the  Senators  crowded  around  his  desk  and  the  galleries 
were  filled  to  overflowing.  His  death  meant  a  great  loss  to  the  peo 
ple  of  California,  more  than  most  of  them  realize,  and  his  devotion  to 
duty,  his  great  energy  and  almost  mania  for  work  broke  him  in  mind 
and  he  appealed  to  stimulants  for  aid.  He  died  meriting  the  plaudits 
of  the  multitude,  instead  of  the  censure  of  his  people. 

"  Work,  unceasing  work,  day  and  night  killed  him.  I  know 
whereof  I  speak,  for  the  work  nearly  killed  me  also.  Every  night  un 
til  ii  or  12  o'clock,  many  nights  until  2  and  3  o'clock  and  sometimes 
all  night  winter  and  summer  we  toiled  side  by  side,  and  sometimes  I 
have  awakened  him  from  a  sleep  at  his  desk  only  to  be  told  that  he 
could  not  go  home  yet  but  must  finish  some  particular  piece  of  work/' 

This  is  the  testimony  of  one  who  was  "  on  the  ground,"  and  who 
has  personal  knowledge  of  the  great  Californian's  devotion  to  the 
people  and  the  strenuous  life  of  grinding  toil,  he  led  at  the  nation's 
capital  in  their  service. 

Senator  White's  standing  in  his  party  was  conspicuous  almost 
from  the  day  that  he  reached  maturity.  Locally,  no  Democratic  gath 
ering  was  considered  complete  without  his  presence  and,  as  has  been 
intimated  in  a  previous  sentence,  it  was  owing  to  his  powerful  per 
sonality,  his  sterling  honesty,  his  genial  kindliness  and  his  squareness, 
uprightness  and  common  sense  that  his  party  held  prestige  so  long  in 
a  community  where  the  population  was  rapidly  increasing  with  im 
migrants  from  strong  Republican  States.  "  Steve  "  White  always  led. 
He  did  not  follow.  In  the  year  1888  he  was  elected  as  one  of  the  dele- 
gates-at-large  to  the  National  Democratic  Convention  held  in  St. 
Louis  and  was  made  temporary  chairman  of  that  great  gathering  of 
his  partisans. 

Again  in  1892  he  was  one  of  the  delegates-at-large  to  the  national 
convention  held  at  Chicago  when  Grover  Cleveland  was  nominated 
for  his  second  term  and,  as  member  of  the  committee  for  that  pur 
pose,  made  the  address  of  notification  to  Vice-President  Adlai  Steven 
son  at  Madison  Square  Garden,  New  York  City. 


I 
10  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

In  the  memorable  convention  held  by  the  Democrats  of  the  nation 
at  Chicago  in  1896  which  nominated  William  J.  Bryan  for  the  Presi 
dency,  Senator  White  was  again  a  delegate  and  was  made  permanent 
chairman  o>f  the  convention.  At  the  conventions  of  1892  and  1896 
Senator  White  was  foremost  in  the  counsels  of  the  delegates,  a  con 
spicuous  and  stalwart  figure  in  every  gathering  thereof.  The  writer 
of  this  sketch  was  present  at  both  those  conventions  and  speaks  by  the 
card.  It  was  an  open  secret  at  Chicago  in  1896  that  but  for  the  pro- 
scriptive  anti-Catholic  organization  known  as  the  American  Protective 
Association,  or  the  "A.  P.  A,"  then  flourishing  and  aggressive  in  many 
parts  of  the  Union,  particularly  in  the  West,  Senator  White  might 
have  been  the  nominee  of  the  convention  for  the  Presidency  instead  of 
Mr.  Bryan.  His  name  was  under  constant  discussion  in  Chicago  in 
that  connection  and  in  connection  with  the  Vice-Presidency.  Had  Mr. 
White  not  been  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith  (and  to  the  shame  of  a 
portion  of  his  countrymen  be  it  said)  he  stood  much  more  than  a  right 
ing  chance  for  the  Presidential  nomination  in  that  year  which  brought 
such  lasting  disaster  to  his  party. 

Something  as  to  the  nature  of  Senator  White's  services  to  the 
country  and  his  State  in  the  United  States  Senate  may  be  gathered  by 
a  perusal  of  his  powerful  speeches  and  debates  in  that  body,  here  re 
produced. 

But  no  record  of  this  strong,  brave  man's  career  would  be  com 
plete  without  especial  reference  to  his  tireless  and  successful  contest 
for  the  establishment  of  a  free  harbor  at  the  Port  of  San  Pedro  on 
the  coast  of  Southern  California.  The  history  of  that  contest  for  a 
free  harbor  is  too  long  and  too  complex  and  involved  to  enter  upon 
here  in  detail  —  the  limitations  forbid  —  but  space  may  be  taken  to 
say  that  in  all  the  history  of  American  legislation  never  was  there 
made  a  more  bitter,  relentless  and  uncompromising  fight  on  both  sides. 
On  one  side  the  people,  knowing  their  rights  and  daring  to  maintain 
them,  on  the  opposing  side  one  of  the  most  powerful  corporations  on 
the  continent,  led  by  one  of  the  most  adroit,  capable,  and  stubborn  of 
men.  The  corporation  was  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  of  Ken 
tucky  —  a  corporation  wholly  Californian,  and  Kentuckian  only  in 
name.  Its  intrepid  leader  and  president,  Collis  P.  Huntingion ;  as  tlie 
leader  in  the  people's  cause  Stephen  M.  White,  United  States  Senator 
from  California. 

Successive  Boards  of  Engineers  representing  the  government  of 
the  United  States  had  selected  San  Pedro  as  the  site  for  a  deep  sea  har 
bor  and  the  construction  of  a  breakwater  whose  cost  would  run  into  tbA 
millions  of  dollars.  Mr.  Huntington,  for  reasons  sufficient  unto  him 
self,  and  probably  apparent  to  every  one  having  no  more  than  a  su 
perficial  knowledge  of  the  conditions  surrounding  the  selection  of  a 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  11 

harbor  site,  decided  that  the  government  must  and  should  locate  the 
harbor  several  miles  further  up  the  coast  at  Santa  Monica  in  an  open 
roadstead.  Certain  of  the  examining  board  of  engineers  considered 
both  sites  and  all  of  them  who  did  so  decided  against  the  Santa  Monica 
proposition  and  in  favor  of  San  Pedro.  But  Collis  P.  Huntington.  with 
his  powerful  corporation  behind  him,  stood  fast.  The  case  seemed 
hopeless.  The  forces  of  money,  position,  daring  and  determination 
were  in  combination  for  the  Santa  Monica  project.  On  the  other 
side  stood  the  reports  of  honest  and  competent  governmental  engineers, 
the  people — and  Stephen  M.  White! 

The  battle  was  on.  And  how  it  raged  for  five  long  years,  with  an 
incipiency  long  prior  thereto,  no  resident  of  the  Southern  portion  of 
California  is  likely  to  forget.  Doggedly,  determinedly,  bitterly,  Mr. 
Huntington  and  his  powerful  array  of  paid  attorneys  hung  to  the 
cause  of  Santa  Monica  with  the  grip  of  tiger  jaws.  Washington 
swarmed  with  lobbyists.  Huntington  himself  went  to  the  capital  to 
appeal  to  Senators  and  Representatives  with  the  power  of  his  millions 
and  the  promises  of  the  great  things  that  could  be  accomplished  by 
his  "  influence."  And  the  influence  of  a  strong  man  with  hundreds 
of  millions  of  dollars  behind  him  is  more  than  many  men  can  resist- 
even  though  they  be  honest  and  incorruptible.  The  shadow  of  the 
dollar  mark  reaches  farther  than  the  strip  of  dusk  made  in  the  sun 
shine  by  the  tallest  church  spire.  Here  was  the  incident  of  David  and 
Goliath  in  replica,  with  Huntington  as  the  giant,  and  the  junior 
Senator  from  California  as  the  stripling  with  the  pebble  and  the  sling. 

As  has  been  said,  when  Senator  White  entered  upon  this  task  for 
the  people  the  case  seemed  hopeless  —  the  force  on  one  side  seemed  so 
powerfully  mighty,  that  on  the  side  of  the  people  so  pitifully  weak. 

But  the  race  is  not  always  to  the  swift  nor  the  battle  to  the 
strong.  The  people  won.  The  Congress  supported  the  reports  of  the 
engineers  and  made  appropriation  for  the  construction  of  a  deep  sea 
harbor  at  San,  Pedro. 

Then  there  was  a  further  contest  in  opposition  to  the  construction 
of  the  harbor,  even  after  Congress  had  definitely  made  a  location  there 
of  and  authorized  and  instructed  the  commencement  of  the  work. 
Russell  A.  Alger,  of  Michigan,  was  then  Secretary  of  War.  Himself 
many  times  a  millionaire,  his  fellow-feeling  for  a  fellow-millionaire 
was  more  powerful  than  his  sense  of  obligation  to  the  people  whose 
paid  servant  he  was. 

Deliberately,  almost  if  not  wholly  maliciously  and  certainly  with 
out  shadow  of  authority,  the  Secretary  of  War,  Russell  A.  Alger, 
"  held  up  "  the  harbor  work.  But  he  had  Stephen  M.  White  to  count 
with,  and  again  the  people  won.  The  War  Secretary  was  driven  from 
the  false  position  he  had  assumed,  and  the  contract  was  let. 


12  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

At  this  writing  (June,  1903)  the  great  harbor  at  San  Pedro  is 
well  along  toward  completion,.  And  there  it  will  remain  forever  a 
monument  to  the  sagacity,  cleverness,  adroitness,  audacity  and  un 
swerving  loyalty  of  Stephen  M.  White! 

During  the  pendency  of  that  strenuous  contest  and  upon  the  oc 
casion  of  one  of  Mr.  Huntington's  many  visits  to  the  national  capital 
the  magnate  of  millions  met  Senator  White  at  a  hotel  in  which  they 
were  mutual  guests.  One  evening  Mr.  Huntington  requested  Senator 
White  to  come  to  his  rooms.  The  story  of  that  interview  has  been 
told  by  a  writer  in  the  Los  Angeles  Times  as  related  by  Senator  White 
himself.  Said  the  Senator  in  telling  some  incidents  of  the  great  har 
bor  contest:  "  He  (Mr.  Huntington)  asked  if  there  was  no  way  for  us 
to  get  together  on  the  harbor  business.  I  said  that  I  did  not  see  any 
way  to  do  so  —  that  I  did  not  think  that  he  would  give  up,  and  I 
knew  I  would  not. 

"  Said  he  (Mr.  Huntington)  I  do  not  see  why.  It  might  be  to 
your  advantage  not  to  be  so  set  in  your  opinion.  I  then  said  to  him : 
Mr.  Huntington,  if  that  harbor  were  my  personal  possession  and  you 
wanted  it  there  would  be  an  easy  way  for  us  to  get  together  and  one 
or  both  of  us  make  some  money.  But  as  that  harbor  belongs  to  the 
people,  and  I  am  merely  holding  it  in  trust  for  them,  and  have  no 
right  to  give  it  away,  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  come  to  any  under 
standing. 

"  Certainly,  said  Mr.  Huntington,  that  is  very  high  moral  ground 
to  take,  but  a  little  Quixotic.  The  people  will  think  no  more  of  you 
in  the  end.  Many  will  think  less  of  you,  said  Mr.  Huntington.  I  am 
not  taking  your  view  of  that  matter  either.  It  is  my  own  self-respect 
I  am  looking  at  now.  So  the  matter  closed." 

After  it  was  all  over  and  White  had  beaten  Huntington,  the 
millionaire  came  to  the  Senator  and  in  the  course  of  conversation 
said :  "  White,  I  like  and  respect  you.  You  are  almost  always  against 
us,  but  it  is  not  for  what  you  can  make  out  of  us  to  come  over.  You 
have  a  steadfast  principle  and  you  fight  like  a  man,  in  the  open  and 
with  clean  weapons.  I  cannot  say  that  of  all  the  public  men  I  have 
had  to  deal  with." 

The  man  who  could  wring  that  tribute  from  Collis  P.  Hunting- 
ton  had  won  a  greater  victory  than  the  mere  act  of  winning  a  contest 
for  a  cause  of  the  people.  It  was  a  tribute  to  manhood.  It  was  a 
laurel  wreath  of  immortality,  not  because  it  came  from  a  millionaire, 
but  because  it  was  an  acknowledgment  of  honesty,  and  loyalty  and 
of  the  respect  that  those  qualities  must  earn  from  the  most  bitter  and 
relentless  opponent. 

Embraced  in  this  volume  is  Senator  White's  great  speech  on  this 
question  which  was  delivered  in  the  Senate  on  May  8  and  9,  1896.  A 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN:  M.  WHITE.  is 

perusal  of  that  masterly  and  memorable  analysis  of  a  public  question 
will  give  to  the  reader  a  clear  idea  what  manner  of  man  Senator  White 
was  —  with  what  force,  logic,  and  adroitness  he  brought  out  the  sa 
lient  points  of  any  matter  to  which  he  gave  his  attention  ana  with  what 
industry,  zeal  and  loyalty  he  fought  the  battles  of  the  people  against 
the  aggressions  of  the  mighty. 

But  of  all  the  many  notable  speeches  delivered  by  Senator  White 
that  one  on  Cuban  Intervention  delivered  before  the  Senate  on  April 
1 6,  1898,  immediately  preceding  the  outbreak  of  the  Spanish- American 
war  and  following  the  destruction  of  the  battleship  Maine  in  the  har 
bor  of  Havana,  is  a  better  exemplication  of  the  powers  and  great 
ness  of  his  character  than  any  other  of  which  record  is  had.  After  its 
delivery  many  of  the  Senators  there  present  declared  that  nothing 
so  eloquent  had  been  heard  in  the  Senate  since  the  Civil  War,  and  that 
sentiment  was  echoed  by  the  people  of  the  entire  nation.  Whatever 
one's  opinions  may  be  as  to  the  stand  taken  by  Senator  White  in  oppo 
sition  to  a  declaration  of  war,  he  cannot  but  admire  the  splendid  spirit 
of  patriotism  and  fidelity  to  ideals  that  permeate  every  sentence  of 
that  matchless  and  moving  address.  It  was  a  speech  that  will  live 
forever  as  a  brilliant  gem  in  the  oratorical  and  patriotic  records  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States ! 

Although  this  brief  review  of  the  life  and  career  of  California's 
most  famous  native-born  son  has  borne  most  upon  the  political  and 
official  phases  thereof,  they  were  really  the  least  important  features  of 
his  work  in  the  world. 

Stephen  M.  White,  first  a  good  and  great  man,  was,  secondly,  one 
of  the  master  spirits  of  the  bar  of  the  State  and  stood  easily  at  the 
head  thereof  in  the  section  termed  Southern  California  to  distinguish 
it  from  that  portion  of  the  State  lying  north  of  the  Tehachepi  moun 
tain  chain. 

There  were  but  few  important  legal  contests  in  the  history  ot 
Southern  California  between  the  year  of  Senator  White's  retirement 
from  the  office  of  District  Attorney  until  his  death  in  which  he  was 
not  retained.  And  he  was  a  tireless  advocate,  a  master  before  a  jury, 
a  pleader  at  the  bar  with  but  few  equals  in  any  State  or  in  any  coun 
try.  He  grasped  the  salient  points  of  an  intricate  and  involved  busi 
ness  proposition  with  an  alertness  bordering  upon  intuition,  and  when 
he  went  into  the  court  room  he  knew  quite  as  much  about  his  client's 
cause,  however  complicated,  as  the  litigant  did  himself.  Few  men 
were  his  equal  in  the  examination  of  a  witness  and  as  a  cross-examiner 
he  was  the  very  apotheosis  of  the  interrogation  point.  He  bore  in 
upon  the  witness  under  fire  with  the  adroitness  of  a  sharpshooter. 
Every  kernel  of  truth,  intelligence  and  knowledge  was  sifted  from 
the  chaff  of  speech,  every  point  in  favor  of  his  client  was  exposed, 


14  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

every  truth  was  made  manifest  an,d  every  lie  revealed  by  his  keen 
and  discriminating  interrogations. 

Senator  White  was  not  an  orator  of  the  ornate,  the  brilliant,  the 
pyrotechnic  and  yet  there  are  but  few  men  who  could  hold  an  audi 
ence  with  a  firmer  grip.  In  more  than  one  national  convention  his 
voice  was  the  one  among  all  the  speakers  that  could  be  heard.  And 
yet  it  was  not  a  big  voice  —  but  it  "  reached."  The  press  of  the  coun 
try,  through  the  correspondents  assembled  at  the  St.  Louis  convention 
of  1888,  applauded  him  as  being  the  first  speaker  in  that  great  body 
who  had  the  capacity  to  make  himself  understood  by  the  delegates  and 
the  vast  multitude  in  the  seats  of  the  populace,  and  until  the  appearance 
of  William  J.  Bryan  with  his  famous  "  cross  of  gold  and  crown  of 
thorns  "  speech  at  Chicago  in  1896  the  same  condition  ruled  at  that 
convention.  After  Senator  White's  retirement  from  the  Senate  with 
his  health  broken  and  his  habits  out  of  joint  he  resumed  his  former 
position  of  prominence  in  the  politics  of  his  party,  being  a  delegate  to 
the  Democratic  State  Convention  of  1900  and  a  delegate-at-large  to 
the  Kansas  City  convention  of  that  year,  and  chairman  of  the  Califor 
nia  delegation. 

While  Senator  White  was  strongly  domestic  in  his  tastes  he  was 
also  a  man  among  men.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Bohemian  Club  of 
San  Francisco,  of  the  California,  Newman  and  Sunset  Clubs  of  Los 
Angeles,  and  many  minor  organizations.  He  was  especially  prominent 
in  the  councils,  or  "  parlors  "  of  the  unique  California  organization 
known  as  the  "  Native  Sons  of  the  Golden  West,"  an  organization  ex 
clusive  to  those  born  upon  California  soil. 

Senator  White's  last  appearance  in  the  court  was  in  his  home 
city,  Los  Angeles,  on  February  I2th,  1901.  Nine  days  later  the 
faithful  citizen,  the  orator  who  had  more  than  once  held  the  nation's 
Senate  enthralled  with  his  mastery  of  speech,  the  brightest  light  in 
the  galaxy  of  the  law  in  the  state  of  his  nativity,  was  no  more.  He 
died  in  the  forty-eighth  year  of  his  age  at  the  hour  of  4:15  a.  m.  on 
February  2ist,  1901.  His  last  speech  to  those  assembled  in  tears 
at  his  bedside  were: 

"  The  evidence  is  all  in ;  the  case  is  submitted." 

And  was  swept  then  and  there  out  in  the  dark  current  that  flows 
on  and  on-  forever  through  the  years  and  the  centuries  and  the  ages, 
one  of  the  bravest,  truest,  sweetest  souls  that  ever  dwelt  in  a 
human  body. 

When  the  intelligence  went  out  over  the  wires  leading  across 
the  state  of  his  birth  and  over  the  mountains  and  through  the  deserts 
to  distant  states  that  Stephen  M.  White  was  no  more  his  country 
men  began  to  realize  that  a  mighty  man  had  fallen  —  that  the  nation 
had  sustained  a  loss. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  15 

From  the  greatest  men  in  America  messages  of  condolence 
began  to  pour  into  the  home  darkened  by  his  going  out  of  it.  His 
late  colleagues  in  the  Congress  hastened  to  pay  tributes  to  his 
memory,  the  civic  organizations  of  the  state  paused  in  their  pro 
ceedings  to  lay  wreaths  of  laurel  upon  the  casket  that  held  his  poor 
worn  body,  the  citizens  of  his  home  city,  partisan  and  non-partisan, 
mourned  his  passing  as  though  the  bereavement  were  personal.  The 
courts  adjourned  out  of  respect  to  his  memory,  his  associates  at  the 
bar  speedily  met  and  drafted  a  memorial  here  made  a  part  of  the 
record. 

These  are  its  words: 

THE  LATE  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

:<  The  symbol  of  the  broken  column,  typifying  the  untimely  death 
of  a  strong  man  stricken  down  in  the  zenith  of  his  power  and  fame, 
in  the  midst  of  his  splendid  usefulness,  was  never  more  strikingly 
applicable  than  in  the  death  of  the  distinguished  man  who  has  just 
passed  away. 

"  Never  since  the  golden  sun  of  the  Occident  flamed  bright  and 
beckoning  upon  the  flag  of  our  country  has  any  of  her  notable  sons 
attained  to  the  commanding  eminence  which  is  with  common  thought 
accorded  to  the  character  and  achievements  of  Stephen  Mallory 
White. 

"  The  stock  from  which  he  sprung  has  produced  many  eminent 
men.  California,  too,  can  boast  of  a  long  line  of  illustrious  dead. 
But  none  of  these  may  justly  claim  a  better  right  than  he  to  enduring 
fame  —  to  have  his  name  emblazoned  in  letters  of  ineffaceable  light 
upon  the  very  foundations  of  the  Capitol  itself.  And  in  our  State 
Pantheon,  his  must  ever  be  an  honored  place. 

"  Born  and  reared,  not  in  poverty,  and  yet  with  none  of  the  adven 
titious  aids  of  fortune  or  of  inherited  wealth  or  position,  he  achieved 
by  force  of  his  indomitable  genius  and  his  rugged,  masterful  strength 
of  character  and  within  those  early  years  when  many  men  of  genius 
are  yet  struggling  for  recognition,  an  honorable  career  that  well  may 
challenge  the  admiration  of  the  world. 

"  We  first  behold  him  a  young  attorney  at  this  bar,  where  he  took 
his  modest  place,  an  untried,  unknown,  unheralded  man,  in  April, 
1875.  Not  long  did  he  remain  obscure,  for  soon  we  behold  him  dis 
charging  with  brilliant  ability  and  success  the  duties  of  District  At 
torney  of  this  county. 

"  And  then  a  new  star  rose  rapidly  in  the  West. 

"  Richly  endowed  with  all  those  gifts  which  go  to  make  the  suc 
cessful  lawyer  —  the  great  orator  —  he  sought  with  the  most  untiring 
diligence  and  effort  and  the  most  exhaustive  labor  to  perfect  his 


16  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

superb  powers.     And  soon  he  became  known  as  a  finished  lawyer,  a 
powerful  advocate,  a  forensic  gladiator  of  the  first  ability. 

"  We  next  behold  him  valiantly  battling,  with  not  less  marked 
distinction,  on  the  uncertain  field  of  politics ;  and  successively  he  rose 
to  preside  over  a  State  and  then  a  national  convention  of  his  party, 
to  be  a  State  Senator,  a  Lieutenant-Governor,  and  then  a  Senator  of 
the  United  States. 

"  In  all  these  large  public  relations  he  always  rose  to  the  demands 
of  every  occasion  and  never  failed  to  wield  a  powerful  influence  for 
what  was  right  and  just,  according  to  his  own  convictions;  and  even 
from  his  opponents  he  always  commanded  the  most  profound  atten 
tion  and  respect. 

"  His  most  eminent  characteristic  lay  in  his  power  to  influence 
deliberate  bodies,  and  he  reachejd  the  highest  expression  of  this 
great  gift  during  his  career  in  the  United  States  Senate.  His  record 
there  is  part  of  the  imperishable  history  of  that  illustrious  body,  and 
not  soon  will  the  renown  which  he  there  achieved  be  covered  by  the 
silence  of  oblivion. 

"  In  politics  he  early  espoused  the  Democratic  faith,  and  was 
always  loyal  to  his  professions. 

"  His  views  upon  great  national  questions,  however,  were  never 
unduly  colored  by  partisan  prejudice,  but  were  rather  tempered  by  a 
wise  and  calm  conservation  that  always  gave  his  counsel  great  weight. 
On  more  than  one  occasion  he  led  a  forlorn  hope  to  certain  defeat, 
rather  than  surrender  his  conviction.  He  was  the  friend  of  the  people 
in  his  endeavors  to  preserve  unimpaired  the  purity  of  the  ballot,  and  to 
compel  the  practice  of  clean  methods  in  politics  and  legislation.  While 
he  was  nowise  hostile  to  or  prejudiced  against  organized  capital  or 
wealth  in  any  form,  nevertheless  he  firmly  believed  above  all  things 
in  the  supremacy  of  the  law  and  the  right  of  the  people  to  govern  them 
selves  according  to  the  will  of  the  majority  when  constitutionally  ex 
pressed,  and  especially  in  the  right  of  every  citizen  to  pursue  his  own 
true  and  substantial  happiness  so  far  as  consistent  with  the  equal  and 
just  rights  of  others  before  the  law.  He  was  the  steadfast  foe  of  fraud, 
force  and  violence  in  whatever  guise  presented  —  whether  expressed 
through  the  machinations  of  the  political  machine  or  the  corrupt  or 
insidious  use  of  wealth  or  place,  or  whether  manifested  through  what 
he  considered  the  insolent  aggressions  of  great  corporate  influence  or 
the  unjustifiable  extensions  of  the  large  powers  of  the  government. 

"  As  an  orator  at  the  bar,  before  a  jury,  on  the  stump,  before  a 
convention,  or  in  the  halls  of  legislation,  he  was  matchless  —  irresist 
ible.  With  a  fine-toned,  sympathetic,  far-reaching  voice  that  ever 
rang  true  and  sincere,  and  speaking  ever  from  profound  convictions 


J     '  •'     .     V     ~     K».l      I        ,      i 

<U£P,rV^ 

SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  17 

that  were  the  result  of  earnest  thought  and  study,  he  always  com 
manded  large  and  appreciative  audiences. 

"  He  was  a  man  of  great  public  spirit,  and  he  believed  that  public 
office  was  a  public  trust;  and  a  leading  thought  with  him  always,  in 
every  public  station,  and  indeed  throughout  his  private  career,  was 
the  general  welfare  of  the  public.  Not  soon  will  the  people  of  the 
West  find  another  such  champion  to  speak  for  them,  or  who  will  pour 
forth  the  rich  treasures  of  his  mind  in  such  unstinted  measure,  or 
with  such  force  of  power,  or  such  disregard  of  self. 

"  But  while  we  may  appropriately  dwell  with  admiration  upon 
these  striking  qualities  which  enabled  him  to  achieve  success  on  the 
larger  fields  of  action,  it  is  of  more  consequence  for  us  to  record  that 
our  departed  brother  was  above  all  a  man  of  the  highest  integrity 
and  honor  in  all  the  relations  of  life.  He  never  stooped  to  win  suc 
cess,  place  or  power  by  any  indirection.  He  never  corrupted  and  he 
was  incorruptible.  He  was  sunny,  genial,  affable,  approachable  —  a 
loyal,  generous  friend,  a  courteous,  honorable  foe. 

"  In  his  intercourse  with  his  brethren  of  the  bar  he  was  manly, 
kind  and  considerate.  Before  the  court  he  was  modest  and  courteous, 
but  withal  marked  by  a  dignity  that  stamped  him  with  the  seal  of 
greatness.  He  always  sought  to  be  right,  he  always  reasoned  hon 
estly,  and  never  did  he  wilfully  pervert  his  great  powers  before  either 
judge  or  jury  in  the  endeavor  to  deceive  the  one  or  mislead  the  other, 
that  injustice  or  wrong  might  knowingly  be  done. 

"  It  is  to  be  deplored  that  more  complete  transcripts  of  his  many 
great  speeches  have  not  been  preserved.  What  was  greatest  in  them 
could  not  be  written,  and  has  passed  away  with  the  man.  But  they 
are  not  forgotten,  and  the  recollection  of  their  striking  brilliance  will 
long  be  cherished  and  preserved,  with  the  fragrant  memory  of  his 
many  virtues  as  lawyer  and  man,  as  citizen  and  friend,  as  among  the 
most  valued  traditions  of  this  bar. 

"  The  same  fine  spirit  of  duty,  chivalry  and  devotion  which 
marked  his  public  and  professional  career  adorned  his  private  life  and 
beautified  his  domestic  relations. 

"  To  his  family  he  leaves  the  priceless  memory  of  his  devotion 
and  protection;  to  his  friends,  the  recollection  of  his  loyalty  and 
truth,  to  his  brethren  of  the  bar,  an  example  of  professional  achieve 
ment  worthy  of  all  imitation;  to  his  home  and  country,  the  heritage 
of  many  good  works  wrought  in  their  behalf,  and  to  all  struggling 
ambitious  young  men  everywhere,  he  leaves  the  record  of  a  career 
which  unmistakably  demonstrates  the  mighty  truth  that  a  deserving, 
capable  man  may  yet  confidently  aspire  in  this  age,  mercenary  though 
it  be,  and  that  he  can  surely  win  the  highest  professional  and  political 


18  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

distinction  without  departing  from  the  path  of  rectitude  or  the  prac 
tice  of  common  honesty. 

"  To  use  his  own  last  words : 
" '  The  evidence  is  all  in ;  the  case  is  submitted/ 
"  Great  lawyer,  great  man,  great  citizen,  great  soul,  farewell ! 
"  Wherefore,  brethren  of  the  bar  of  Los  Angeles,  your  committee 
appointed  in  general  bar  meeting  assembled,  desiring  only  to  express 
a  true  estimate  of  the  character  and  worth  of  our  departed  brother 
without  attemping  any  detailed  review  of  the  events  of  his  notable 
life  work,  has  prepared  this  memorial  and   submit  it   for  your  ap 
proval,  with  the  suggestion  that  it  be  further  noted  so  as  to  be  a  part 
of  this   record,   that  our  departed   brother,   Stephen  Mallory  White, 
was  born  January   19,   1853,   at   San   Francisco,   State  of  California, 
and  that  he  died  February  21,  1901,  in  the  city  of  Los  Angeles. 

"  We  recommend  that  an  engrossed  and  signed  copy  of  this  me 
morial  be  furnished  to  his  family  and  to  his  mother,  that  copies  be 
given  to  the  press,  and  that  a  copy  be  presented  to  each  of  the  Fed 
eral  and  Superior  Courts  in  this  city,  by  members  of  the  bar,  to  be 
selected  by  your  honorable  body,  with  the  request  that  it  be  tran 
scribed  at  length  upon  the  minutes;  and  that  copies  be  furnished  to 
the  State  Supreme  Court,  the  State  Senate,  and  to  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States. 

"  HENRY  T.   GAGE:,   Governor  of  California. 

"  ERSKINE  M.  Ross,  U.  S.  Circuit  Judge. 

"  OLIN  WELLBORN,  U.  S.  District  Judge. 

"  LUCIEN   SHAW,  Judge  Superior  Court. 

"  JOHN   D.  BICKNELL, 

"J.  S.  CHAPMAN, 

"  GEORGE  J.  DENIS, 

"  R.  F.  DEL  VALLE, 

"  ROBERT  N.  BULLA, 

"  CHARLES   MONROE, 

"  R.  H.  F.  VARIEL, 

"  Memorial   Committee." 

Upon  the  day  of  Senator  White's  death  the  Mayor  of  Los 
Angeles,  Meredith  P.  Snyder,  with  commendable  promptness,  made 
public  suggestion  of  a  monument  to  the  departed  leader  in  proclama 
tion  as  follows: 

MAYOR'S  OFFICE,  Los  ANGELES,  CAL.,  FEB.  21,  1901. 

"  With  profound  sorrow  the  Mayor  of  the  City  of  Los  Angeles 
announces  the  death  of  our  distinguished  fellow-townsman,  the  Hon. 
Stephen  Mallory  White,  which  occurred  at  his  residence  early  this 
morning. 

"  The  eminent  station  of  the  deceased,  his  high  character,  his 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  '  19 

magnificent  attainments,  his  long  and  extraordinary  career  in  the 
public  service,  his  unfailing  devotion  to  the  cause  of  the  people  of 
his  native  State  and  his  splendid  ability  which  he  contributed  to  the 
discharge  of  every  duty,  stand  conspicuous  and  are  indelibly  impressed 
on  the  hearts  and  affections  of  all. 

"  Deeming  it  highly  proper  that  the  citizens  of  our  municipality 
should  take  the  initiative  in  perpetuating  the  memory  of  California's 
greatest  sou  I  suggest  that  immediate  steps  be  taken  to  erect,  at  some 
suitable  place  within  our  city,  an  appropriate  monument,  commemora-' 
tive  of  Senator  White's  public  services,  the  cost  thereof  to  be  defrayed 
by  popular  subscription,  the  voluntary  offering  of  a  grateful  people. 

'*  As  a  mark  of  respect  to  the  memory  of  this  eminent  and  faith 
ful  public  servant,  I  request  that  the  City  Hall  be  closed  on  Saturday, 
February  23,  the  day  of  his  obsequies,  and  that  the  City  Hall  flag 
be  placed  at  half-mast  and  so  remain  until  after  his  funeral. 

"M.   P.   SNYDER, 
"  Mayor." 

In  response  to  this  timely  and  fitting  suggestion  the  sum  of 
$25,000  was  subscribed  by  Senator  White's  admiring  fellow-citizens 
and  a  monument  in  keeping  with  his  worth  and  services  is  to  be 
erected  upon  some  notable  location  in  the  City  of  Los  Angeles. 

Immediately  upon  the  news  of  the  death  of  the  Senator  reaching 
the  State  Legislature,  then  in  session,  action  was  taken  expressing  the 
sentiment  of  that  body,  by  its  several  houses  as  to  the  loss  sustained 
by  the  State. 

The  Senate  resolutions  were  as  follows: 

"  WHEREAS,  in  the  death  of  Stephen  M.  White  the  Union  has 
lost  a  man  who  was  a  lover  of  constitutional  liberty,  and  the  State 
of  California  one  of  her  noblest  and  most  gifted  sons ;  a  statesman  of 
magnificent  and  splendid  abilities ;  a  lawyer  of  eminent  and  com 
manding  talents ;  and  a  noble,  energetic  and  unselfish  citizen  who  was 
devoted  to  its  interests,  therefore,  be  it 

""  Resolved,  that  the)  Senate  receives  with  profound  sorrow  the 
intelligence  of  the  death  of  Stephen  M.  White,  formerly  a  Senator 
of  the  United  States,  and  for  six  years  a  distinguished  member  of  that 
body;  and 

"  Resolved^  that  the  Senate  tender  its  sympathy  to  the  family 
of  the  deceased  and  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Senate  be  directed  to 
forward  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  to  them,  and 

"  fiesolved,  that  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  printed  in  the 
journal  of  the  senate,  and  that  the  Senate  adjourn  out  of  respect  to 
the  eminent  services  and  private  virtues  of  the  deceased." 

The  Assembly  met  the  same  day  and  adopted  the  following 
resolutions  by  a  rising  vote: 


20  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

"  WHEREAS,  we  have  just  learned  with  unfeigned  sorrow  of  the 
death  of  the  Hon.  Stephen  M.  White,  formerly  State  Senator  from 
Los  Angeles  County,  and  United  States  Senator  from  California,  and 
whereas,  it  is  fit  and  proper  that  the  feelings  of  the  State  of 
California,  represented  by  the  Assembly  of  the  State,  should  be 
expressed  with  reference  to  the  life  and  death  of  one  who  filled  so 
important  a  place  in  the  affairs  of  this  commonwealth,  therefore,  be  it 

"  Resolved,  that  in  the  death  of  Stephen  M.  White  our  State  has 
'  lost  a  man  whose  every  act  in  private  and  public  life  was  governed 
by  a  desire  to  aid  the  State  which  was  honored  by  his  birth,  and 
whose  career  as  a  public  man  was  free  from  blot  or  blemish  or 
scandal  or  taint  of  corruption,  and  in  his  private  life  displayed  those 
august  qualities  which  attracted  men  to  him  as  with  hooks  of  steel, 
regardless  of  their  political  faith,  and  who  as  a  citizen,  it  was  the 
pride  and  pleasure  of  all  to  know  and  claim  as  a  friend,  and  who 
has,  by  the  success  which  attended  his  efforts  in  life,  shown  that, 
in  this  country,  lack  of  fortune  does  not  prevent  a  man  from  attaining 
by  his  own  exertions  the  highest  distinctions  in  the  gift  of  the  people; 
and  be  it  further 

"  Resolved,  that  we  tender  to  the  family  of  our  dead  Senator 
our  sincere  sympathy,  and  assure  them  that  while  they  peculiarly  feel 
the  loss  of  a  kind  and  loving  father  and  husband,  we  mourn  the  loss 
of  one  who  was  at  once  a  friend  of  the  people,  a  leader  in  good  works, 
and  a  public  servant  of  whom  it  could  be  said  at  all  times,  that  his 
work  was  well  done,  with  an  honest  and  heartfelt  effort  to  do  his 
duty  as  he  understood  it;  and  be  it  further 

"  Resolved,  )that  as  -a  further  mark  of  esteem  for  his  memory, 
when  this  Assembly  adjourns  today  it  do  so  out  of  respect  for  the 
Hon.  Stephen  M.  White;  and  be  it  further 

"  Resolved,  that  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  be  duly  engrossed 
and  attested  by  the  Speaker  and  Chief  Clerk  and  forwarded  to  the 
family  of  the  deceased." 

Resolutions  in  keeping  with  the  above  were  likewise  adopted  by 
the  civic  organizations  in  his  home  and  in,  other  cities  of  the  State, 
while  at  the  National  Capital  his  death  was  felt  to  be  a  loss  of  pro 
found  moment  to  the  entire  cour.try. 

As  has  been  said  elsewhere  Senator  White  was,  in  religion  a 
Roman  Catholic,  and  he  died  with  the  blessings  of  that  great  Chris 
tian  organization  to  which  he  gave  loyal  allegiance.  His  remains 
were  removed  from  his  home  to  St.  Vibiana's  Cathedral  at  9  o'clock 
in  the  morning  of  Saturday,  February  23rd,  1901,  and  there  gathered 
about  his  bier  in  that  solemn  hour  the  leading  men  of  his  city  and  his 
State,  besides  men  of  national  prominence  from  other  States.  The 
mass  was  celebrated  by  Bishop  George  Montgomery,  and  Bishop 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  21 

Horstmann  of  Cleveland,  Ohio,  delivered  the  funeral  oration.  The 
active  pallbearers  were  the  directors  of  the  Newman  Club  of  which 
Mr.  White  was  a  member  and  each  of  them  an  intimate  friend. 
They  were,  John  F.  Francis,  James  C.  Kays  (whose  name  is  else 
where  mentioned  as  an  early  intimate  of  the  Senator's,)  Louis  A. 
Grant,  John  J.  Fay,  Ex-State  Senator  R.  F.  Del  Valle,  I.  B.  Dock- 
weiler,  Joseph  F.  Scott  and  H.  C.  Dillon. 

The  honorary  pallbearers  comprised  the  first  men  of  the  common 
wealth,  residents  of  various  sections  and  of  distinguished  men  from 
other  States.  For  the  sake  of  history  a  complete  list  is  here  given, 
and  is  as  follows : 

Gen.  Harrison  Gray  Otis  of  the  Los  Angeles  Times,  Ex-Senator 
Edward  Murphy,  Jr.,  of  New  York,  who  served  for  six  years  in 
the  Senate  with  Mr.  White;  Governor  Henry  T.  Gage,  Chief  Justice 
Beatty  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  six  associate  justices,  Hon.  Erskine 
M.  Ross  and  Hon.  Olin  Wellborn  of  the  United  States  Court,  Superior 
Judges  Lucian  Shaw,  B.  N.  Smith,  M.  T.  Allen,  Waldo  M.  York,  D. 
K.  Trask,  N.  P.  Conrey,  Ex-Congressman  Russell  J.  Waters,  Hon. 
James  McLachlan,  Hon.  James  D.  Phelan,  Ex-Mayor  of  San  Fran 
cisco;  Hon.  James  G.  Maguire,  Ex-Congressman  from  the  same  city; 
W.  F.  Fitzgerald,  John  S.  Chapman  and  J.  D.  Bicknell,  leading  mem 
bers  of  the  Los  Angeles  bar;  Mayor  Meredith  P.  Snyder,  P.  W. 
Powers,  John  T.  Gaffey,  I.  H.  Polk,  Charles  Prager,  W.  W.  Foote, 
D.  M.  Delmas,  John  Garber,  H.  W.  Hellman,  M.  J.  Newmark,  Kas- 
pare  Cohn,  Eugene  Germain,  Joseph  Mesmer,  J.  M.  Elliott,  W.  C. 
Patterson,  John  E.  Plater,  John  R.  Mathews,  H.  T.  Lee,  William  H. 
Perry,  J.  W.  Mitchell,  William  Pridham,  Charles  Forman,  John 
Kenealy,  Richard  Dillon,  D.  M.  McGarry,  W.  A.  Cheny,  J.  W. 
McKinley,  O.  W.  Childs,  J.  O.  Koepfli,  Henry  T.  Hazard,  John 
Crimmins,  W.  H.  Workman,  I.  N.  Van  Nuys,  A.  J.  King,  Horace 
Bell,  J.  A.  Redman,  William  R.  Rowland,  R.  Egan,  John  Foster,  W. 
D.  Gould,  F.  L.  Winder,  R.  B.  Carpenter,  Hugh,  L.  Macneil,  Cor 
nelius  Cole,  Ex-United  States  Senator;  W.  L.  Hardison,  C.  White 
Mortimer,  Victor  Ponet,  A.  Fusenot,  M.  Esternaux,  J.  Castruccio, 
Gen.  Andrade,  A.  M.  Stephens,  J.  R.  Scott,  A.  W.  Hutton,  Ben  Good 
rich,  R.  H.  F.  Variel,  Frank  P.  Flint,  B.  W.  Lee,  S.  O.  Houghton, 
Charles  Silent,  J.  A.  Anderson,  Jr.,  J.  S.  Slauson,  F.  Q.  Story,  E.  F. 
C.  Klokke,  Dr.  John  R.  Haynes,  Dr.  Walter  Lindley,  Dr.  E.  A. 
Bryant,  W.  R.  Burke,  Frank  Garrett,  Congressman  E.  F.  Loud,  W.  A. 
Clark,  J.  A.  Barham,  W.  H.  Alford,  R.  J.  Wilson,  Charles  Monroe, 
J.  D.  Sproule,  A.  F.  Jones,  Frank  McLaughlin,  Frank  Finlayson,  John 
P.  Irish,  Gavin  McNab,  H.  B.  Gillis,  W.  R.  Radcliff,  J.  H.  Farraher, 
J.  J.  Dwyer,  J.  F.  Sullivan,  J.  A.  Filcher,  Edward  Maslin,  W.  J. 
Trask,  Fred  Cox,  J.  H.  Sewall,  James  H.  Wilkins,  T.  W.  H.  Shana- 


22  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

ban,  H.  C.  Gesford,  T.  B.  Bond,  Ed  E.  Leak,  E.  L.  Coleman,  W.  V. 
Gaffey,  W.  R.  Jacobs,  Thomas  Flint,  Jr.,  John  Curten,  B.  F.  Langford, 

D.  A.  Ostrom,  M.  F.  Tarpey,  R.  B.  Canfield,  Marion  Cannon,  Abbott 
Kinney,  George  H.  Fox,  C.  E.  Thorn,  R.  Porter  Ashe,  J.  Rogs  Clark, 
T.  E.  Gibbon,  Willard  Stimson,  F.  H.  Gould,  J.  V.  Coleman,  Frank 
J.  Moffatt,  R.  P.  Troy,  Gen.    P.  W.  Murphy,    J.  A.  Graves,    Fred 
Harkness,  W.  S.  Leak,  Dr.  W.  P.  Mathews,  C.  B.  Younger,  W.  H. 
Spurgeon,  Oscar  Trippett,  Byron  Waters,  J.  Downey  Harvey,  George 
S.   Patton,   Peter  D.   Martin,  John  McGonigle,  Jarrett  T.  Richards, 
William  Graves,  John  A.  Hicks,  B.  D.  Murphy,  G.  G.  Goucher,  J.  C. 
Sims,  E.  H.  Hamilton,   N.  A.  Covorrubias,  Max  Popper,  J.  W.  B. 
Montgomery,  Dr.  Joseph  Kurtz,  C.  F.  Heinzman,  C.  A.  Last,  J.  D. 
Spreckels,  M.  H.  De  Young,  W .  R.  Hearst,  T.  J.  Flynn,  E.  B.  Pond, 

E.  A.   Preuss,   F.  J.  Heney,  Dr.  H.   Nadeau,  A.  B.   Butler,  W.  S. 
Moore,  Garrett  W.  McEnerny,  Jas.  H.  O'Brien,  J.  J.  Carrillo,  J.  B. 
Van   Demey,   A.   T.    Spotts,   John    P.   Dunn,   Julius    Sieckes,   D.   D. 
English,  T.  J.   Clunie,  Warren  English,  Victor  H.  Metcalf,  W.  W. 
Bowers,  S.  M.  Shortridge,  George  A.  Knight,  Gen.  W.  H.  L.  Barnes, 
J.  C.  Campbell,  E.  S.  Pillsbury,  W.  E.  Dargie,  J.  V.  Coftey,  Judge 
W.  W.  Morrow,  Judge  W.  D.  Gilbert,  Judge  J.  J.  De  Haven,  J.  S. 
Spear,  H.  W.  Frank,  F.  M.  Coulter,  Niles  Pease,  H.  Jevne,  J.  Baruch, 
H.  C.  Lichtenberger,  W.  J.  Variel,  L.  E.  Aubrey,  E.  A.  Meserve,  Dr. 
Carl  Kurtz,  M.  H.  Newmark,  F.  T.  Griffith,  W.  G.  Hunt,  John  S. 
Thayer,   J.   D.   Hooker,   I.   A.  Lothian,   L.  C.   Scheller,  Will   Bishop 
and  J.  D.  Lynch. 

On  the  day  of  the  funeral  the  flags  were  at  half-mast  of  the 
City  Halls  of  San  Francisco  and  Los  Angeles.  In  one  city  he  was 
born,  in  the  other  he  died.  The  boards  of  supervisors  of  both  cities 
and  counties  passed  appropriate  resolutions  on  the  subject  of  his 
loss  to  the  State. 

The  dead  Senator  left  a  considerable  estate,  somewhat  in  excess 
of  $100,000,  which  was  bequeathed  wholly  to  his  wife  and  children. 

Thus  was  born  into  this  world,  lived  thereon  for  a  brief  forty- 
eight  years  and  passed  away  a  man  who  was,  despite  his  comparatively 
short  life,  one  of  the  notable  Americans.  He  was  a  man  who  would 
have  been  distinguished  in  any  company,  or  in  any  country,  and 
withal  he  was  one  of  the  most  modest,  frank  and  simple  of  men.  He 
spoke  his  thoughts  openly.  He  did  nothing  by  stealth  and  never 
talked  in  whispers,  as  is  sometimes  the  way  of  politicians.  He 
showed  unmistakably  that  the  great  man  is  the  simple  and  unpre 
tentious  man.  He  was  as  approachable  by  the  humblest  citizen  as  by 
the  most  exalted  in  the  State.  He  was  not  crushed  by  defeat 'nor 
made  haughty  by  success.  To  his  neighbors  and  friends,  and  col 
leagues  he  was  "  Steve  "  White  and  as  "  Our  Steve  "  he  was  wel- 


SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  23 

corned  and  proclaimed  by  the  people  of  his  home.      He    was    good 
to  the  core.     He  was  a  man. 

California  mourned  his  death  as  a  fond  mother  mourns  the 
passing  of  a  favorite  son.  And  his  loss  to  the  State  was  equally  a 
loss  to  the  world  for  great  men  who  are  good  and  true  and  loyal 
men,  as  well,  are  not  to  be  counted  lightly  at  a  time  when  manhood 
is  counting  for  more  and  more  as  the  years  roll  by. 

As  the  leading  newspaper  of  Los  Angeles  —  a  paper  politically 
opposed  to  the  Senator  —  said  in  an  editorial  in  commenting  upon 
his  death: 

"  Good  citizen,  pure  patriot,  eloquent  orator,  learned  lawyer, 
able  statesman ;  in  the  prime  of  life  with  great  renown  won ;  with  a 
glorious  career  achieved ;  with  an  imperishable  name  written  on  the 
pages  of  the  history  of  the  country,  he  has  gone  untimely  to  his 
rest.  He  leaves  behind  a  light  which  will  shine  for  ages  to  come. 
His  is  a  clear,  unsullied  and  a  great  record.  Centuries  will  pass  over 
the  mound  of  grass  where  his  ashes  shall  rest  and  still  this  city  and 
this  State  will  be  his  debtors  for  the  great  services  he  performed  for 
the  public  good. 

"  We  mourn  deeply  his  loss  today,  but  in  all  coming  days  Los 
Angeles  and  all  California  will  rejoice  in  the  splendid  life  of  the 
gifted  and  patriotic  soul  which  has  passed  away  from  earth.  Not 
death  itself  can  rob  Los  Angeles  of  the  glorious  record  of  her  noble 
citizen.  Nor  will  time  dim  the  luster  of  achievements  which  leave 
the  State  in  debt  to  her  most  distinguished  son,  her  bravest,  most  high- 
souled  public  servant." 

No  eulogy  was  ever  more  richly  earned  by  an  American  states 
man,  and  no  tribute  however  eloquent  could  fitly  voice  the  merits 
of  one  of  the  sweetest,  and  most  human  creatures  that  ever  walked 
among  men, —  one  who  ennobled  them  by  his  having  lived  and  made 
the  world  better  therefor. 

And  as  a  memorial  and  a  tribute  to  the  man  and  for  the  uplifting 
and  betterment  of  those  who  are  to  come  after  this  record  of  great 
deeds  well  done,  great  words  well  said,  great  sentiments  set  forth 
in  luminous  and  telling  speech  is  here  given  to  his  countrymen  that  so 
much  of  faith  and  courage,  and  fidelity  and  devotion  shall  not  perish 
from  the  earth. 

LEROY  E.  MOSHER. 


REMONETIZATION  OF  SILVER 


SPEECH  DELIVERED 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
Thursday,  September  21,  1893. 

The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  bill  (H.  R.  i)  to  repeal  a  part 
of  an  act,  approved  July  14,  1890,  entitled  "  An  act  directing  the  purchase  of 
silver  bullion  and  the  issue  of  Treasury  notes  thereon,  and  for  other  purposes." — 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California  said : 

Mr.  PRESIDENT:   Said  Daniel  Webster,  on  December  21,  1838: 

Congress  has  no  power  granted  to  it  in  this  respect,  but  to  coin  money  and 
to  regulate  the  value  of  foreign  coins.  The  legal  tender,  therefore  the  constitu 
tional  standard  of  value,  is  established  and  can  not  be  overthrown.  I  am  cer 
tainly  of  opinion  that  gold  and  silver,  at  rates  fixed  by  Congress,  constitute  the 
legal  standard  of  values  in  this  country,  and  that  neither  Congress  nor  any 
state  has  authority  to  establish  any  other  standard  or  to  displace  this. 

Mr.  President,  I  approach  the  consideration  of  the  pending  meas 
ure  with  considerable  diffidence.  When  the  bills  to  which  my  remarks 
shall  be  addressed  were  first  attracted  to  my  attention  I  doubted 
whether,  in  view  of  the  great  experience  and  the  admitted  ability  of 
gentlemen  upon  both  sides  of  this  Chamber  whom  I  knew  would  call 
to  the  consideration  of  the  matter  their  best  endeavors,  it  would  be  wise 
for  me  to  obtrude  my  views.  But  recollecting  that  the  question  is  one 
of  paramount  importance,  and  that  I  have  been  summoned  to  this 
Chamber  by  the  will  of  a  great  Commonwealth,  I  believe  that  I  wtould 
not  be  discharging  my  duty  properly  if  I  did  not  express  the  reasons 
for  the  faith  that  is  within  me. 

I  am  not  deterred  from  this  expression  by  any  extraneous  asser 
tions  of  waste  of  time.  A  careful  observer  of  everything  that  has 
transpired  here,  I  know  it  to  be  untrue  that  any  Senator  has  spoken 
with  any  other  view  than  to  enlighten  those  who  listen  to  him  and  who 
might  read  the  arguments  presented.  Those  who  have  heard  or  read 
our  proceedings  know  that  the  interest  in  this  debate  has  not  flagged, 
and  that  there  has  been  brought  from  day  to  day  to  the  investigation 
of  this  important  issue  not  only  much  ability,  but  careful  and  profound 
study. 

At  the  outset  let  me  suggest  that  I  am  not  at  all  oblivious  of  the 
ability,  honesty,  and  statesmanship  of  Senators  with  whom  I  am  com 
pelled  to  differ ;  nor  is  it  right  that  those  gentlemen  whose  expressions 
and  arguments  I  shall  criticise  should  entertain  the  opinion  that  I  am 
unmindful  of  the  thorough  examination  which  they  have  given  the 
pending  subject,  or  of  the  attainments  which  they  have  utilized  in 
reaching  the  judgments  which  they  have  announced.  Nevertheless, 
however  much  greater  their  experience,  although  I  admire  their  ability 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  25 

and  readily  acknowledge  them  to  be  gentlemen  of  integrity,  I  can  not 
for  these  reasons  abandon  my  own  views  and  shall  not  hesitate  to  utter 
them  candidly  and  plainly. 

At  the  same  time  I  beg  each  Senator  here,  whether  he  be  a  member 
of  the  party  to  which  I  belong  or  whether  his  fortunes  have  been 
thrown  in  other  political  channels,  to  recollect  that  though  my  expres 
sions  may,  because  of  want  of  power  to  declare  them  otherwise,  seem 
to  convey  reflections,  I  intend  nothing  of  the  sort.  I  wish  Senators  to 
remember  that  I  cast  no  aspersions  upon  the  motives  of  any  Senator ; 
that  I  know  the  aspirations  of  all  are  high  and  worthy  of  this  Chamber 
and  of  this  Assembly,  which  you,  Mr.  President,  declared  from  the 
chair  is  the  greatest  deliberative  body  upon  earth.  . 

In  considering  this  matter  I  can  not  avoid  to  some  extent  repeating 
what  has  been  said  by  others.  Indeed,  I  hardly  hope  to  present  any 
thing  new.  I  might  say  in  the  words  of  some  one  else  that  I  have 
gathered  a  posey  of  other  men's  flowers,  and  only  the  thread  that 
binds  them  together  is  my  own.  Therefore  I  deem  myself  at  liberty  to 
discuss  this  subject  freely,  and  while  endeavoring  to  obtain  and  deserve 
the  respect  of  my  colleagues,  I  shall  not  omit  to  attack  those  conclu 
sions  which  seem  to  me  ill  founded  and  unsupported. 

I  will  argue  that  we  are  bound  by  our  platforms  to  oppose  uncon 
ditional  repeal,  and  will  also  attempt  to  show  that  independently  of 
those  platforms  it  is  our  duty,  as  patriotic  citizens  having  the  best 
interests  of  our  country  at  heart,  to  legislate  in  the  interest  of  silver, 
and  it  will  be  readily  understood  before  I  conclude  that  I  prefer  free 
coinage  at  a  ratio  of  16  to  i. 

I  shall  first  consider  the  present  condition  of  affairs  with  reference 
to  the  causes  of  depression. 

I  believe  that  the  present  depression  was  produced  by  inflation  and 
overspeculation  resulting  from  tariff  legislation,  and  that  the  illogical 
and  unnatural  treatment  which  silver  has  received  from  us  was  pro- 
motive  of  disaster.  I  am  not  prepared  to  deny  that  the  prospect  of  a  new 
tariff  law  affected  matters  in  a  degree,  because,  as  has  been  truly  said, 
any  tariff  revision  whatever  has  some  bearing  upon  the  markets  and 
creates  some  disturbance.  I  know,  however  well  devised  such  legisla 
tion  may  be,  it  cannot  but  be  a  cause  of  grave  solicitude  to  those 
who  will  be  affected  by  its  enforcement ;  and  fairness  and  candor 
require,  I  think,  that  we  should  admit  that  much.  That  fact  leads  to 
a  conclusion,  which  I  shall  reach  later  on,  that  there  are  before  us 
duties  of  greater  importance  than  those  to  which  we  have  been  sum 
moned  to  direct  our  undivided  attention. 

I  am  satisfied,  further,  that  the  constant  and  unremitting  asser 
tions  by  alleged  financial  authorities  and  by  Wall  street  newspapers 
to  the  effect  that  we  are  going  to  the  bad  because  of  the  Sherman 
bill  frightened  many  people,  and  that  the  deliberate,  preconcerted, 
and  generally  arranged  programme  by  which  a  number  of  the  specu 
lators  of  the  country  prevented  the  loaning  of  money  and  promulgated 
an  edict  to  the  effect  that  nothing  would  be  done,  no  money  permitted 
to  move  until  the  Sherman  act  was  repealed,  had  much  to  do  with  the 
embarrassment. 

I  wish,  in  a  few  words,  to  say  that  it  is  not  true  that  this  country 
has  been  in  such  an  intensely  prosperous  condition  in  the  recent  past 


26  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

as  many  of  our  friends  on  the  other  side,  and  several  Senators  upon 
our  own  side,  suppose.  I  claim  that,  although  upon  the  surface  it 
seemed  as  if  there  was  general  prosperity,  the  truth  is  that  there  were 
elements  in  operation  which  anyone  of  discernment,  and  who  desired 
to  make  careful  examination,  could  discover  justifying  the  anticipation 
that  hard  times  were  at  hand. 

Enterprises  were  carried  on  involving  large  outlays,  and  the  casual 
observer  would  conclude,  and  people  generally  did  believe,  that  every 
one  was  getting  rich. 

In  the  Fifty-first  Congress  there  was  a  memorial  presented  praying 
for  the  passage  of  the  Torrey  bankruptcy  bill.  This  document  was 
laid  before  Congress  at  its  second  session,  after  the  passage  of  the 
Sherman  and  McKinley  laws.  It  was  headed,  "  Memorial  calling 
attention  to  the  present  depressed  financial  condition  of  the  country." 
And  it  began  thus : 

The  financial  affairs  of  the  country  are  in  a  perilous  condition.  Business 
men  in  all  of  the  States  of  the  Union  are  apprehensive  that  there  will  be  a  panic. 
Citizens  in  general  are  alarmed  at  the  outlook.  Values  of  property  are  decreas 
ing.  Persons,  firms,  and  corporations  are  daily  failing,  whose  assets  are  largely 
in  excess  of  their  liabilities.  There  is  but  a  single  cause  for  all  the  above  condi 
tions,  and  that  is  want  of  confidence.  As  a  result  of  that  single  cause  money 
is  being  withdrawn  from  circulation  and  the  evils  which  are  following  and  are 
likely  to  continue  to  follow  are  innumerable. 

This  was  in  1890.  Hence  before  the  Sherman  law,  regarding 
which  we  are  speaking,  could  have  affected  the  affairs  of  this  country, 
before  there  was  any  opportunity  for  its  extended  operation,  men 
who  knew  what  they  were  talking  about,  and  in  fact  all  familiar 
with  business  affairs  were  aware  that  there  was  a  panic  in  progress, 
perhaps,  less  forceful  than  the  present,  but  nevertheless,  as  they 
thought,  Worthy  of  serious  attention.  There  are  other  causes  and 
other  reasons  leading  me  to  conclude  that  this  difficulty  was  smoldering, 
if  I  may  use  the  expression,  and  the  flame  was  at  that  early  day  almost 
ready  to  burst  forth. 

The  census  also  tells  a  significant  story.  During  the  last  twelve 
years  our  wealth  has  increased  scarcely  60  per  cent.,  and  in  making 
this  estimate  we  credit  ourselves  with  numerous  speculative  land  values. 

The  bonded  railroad  indebtedness,  according  to  Poor,  increased 
from  $2,530,874,943  in  1880  to  $5,463,611,204  in  1892,  and  the  other 
railroad  indebtedness,  which  was  $162,489,939  in  1880  was  $285,831,- 
8«8  in  1892. 

During  the  same  period,  it  is  stated  upon  good  authority  that  the 
loans  and  overdrafts  of  national  banks  increased  from  less  than  a 
thousand  million  dollars  to  $2,171,000,000,  while  those  of  other  banks, 
not  considering  private  banks,  and  of  real-estate  mortgages,  increased 
from  $378,000,000  to  $1,189,000,000.  This  information  I  get  from 
a  table  which  has  been  utilized  here,  and  was  presented  by  the  Senator 
from  Cok>rado  [Mr.  TELLER],  and  its  verity  has  not  been  disputed. 

But  the  most  surprising  and  at  the  same  time  appalling  showing 
is  that  which  is  disclosed  with  reference  to  real-estate  mortgage 
indebtedness  by  the  investigations  of  the  last  census.  These  mort 
gages  are  not  by  any  means  wholly  the  mortgages  of  wealthy 
people,  but  include  the  toilers  of  the  country,  especially  the  farmers — 
the  possessors  of  small  homes — industrious,  painstaking,  economical 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  27 

people.     These  are  the  proprietors  to  a  large  extent  of  the  mortgaged 
premises. 

In  an  estimate  made  by  Mr.  Waite,  and  which  has  not,  as  far 
as  I  am  aware,  been  contradicted,  that  gentleman  states  that  in  the 
twenty-one  States  for  which  the  mortgaged  indebtedness  has  been 
tabulated,  not  including  Ohio,  Texas,  California,  and  many  other 
States,  the  aggregate  amount  in  force  in  1889  was  $4,547,000,000,  and 
the  grand  aggregate,  Mr.  Waite  concludes,  will  be  no  less  than  $6,300,- 
000,000 ;  and  I  may  say  that  such  investigation  as  I  have  been  able  to 
give  the  subject,  leads  me  to  believe  that  this  estimate  is  rather  under 
than  over  the  actual  figures. 

In  1880  the  total  aggregate  was  about  $2,500,000,000;  in  1892 
the  mortgaged  indebtedness  increased  until  it  attained  a  figure  in  excess 
of  $8,000,000,000. 

These  disclosures  prove  that  up  to  1892  this  mortgage  indebtedness 
had  increased,  as  contrasted  with  its  status  in  1880,  nearly  four  times 
the  increase  in  real-estate  value. 

To  summarize : 

Amount  of  private  indebtedness  of  the  American  peo 
ple  in  1880 $6,750,000,000 

Amount  of  private  indebtedness  of  American  people 

in  September,   1892 19,700,000,000 

An  increase  of  almost  $13,000,000,000  in  the  short  period  of  twelve 
years. 

At  this  point  it  may  be  well  to  refer  to  the  amount  of  money  in 
circulation  according  to  the  statement  in  Senate  Miscellaneous  Docu 
ment  No.  35,  presented  by  the  Senator  from  Missouri  [Mr.  COCK- 
ERELL] . 

The  total  stock  of  gold  in  the  world  is $3,582,605,000 

Total   stock  of  silver    4,042,700,000 

Uncovered    paper    2,635,873,000 


Total    $10,261,178,00:0 

Total  of  gold  and  silver   7,625,305,000 

The  entire  stock  of  gold  and  silver  in  the  world  is  not  sufficient 
to  pay  the  net  private  indebtedness  of  the  American  people.  This 
has  been  the  condition  of  affairs  during  the  period  above  stated ;  and 
yet  w*e  are  told  that  we  are  suffering  from  too  much  money. 

We  are  informed  by  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Connecticut 
[Mr.  HAWLEY],  that  the  gold-bond  indebtedness  of  railroads  within 
the  United  States  exceeds  $4,600,000,000,  and  yet  this  is  considerably 
more  than  all  the  gold  in  the  world.  (Poor  gives  the  railroad  funded 
debt  for  1892  at  $5,463,611,204.)  This  extraordinary  increase  in  the 
indebtedness  of  the  people  occurred  during  high  protection  times,  and 
was  aggravated  apparently  by  the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill. 

Of  course,  Mr.  President,  no  one  expects  the  railroads  to  pay 
their  indebtedness.  It  is  an  impossibility,  and  hence  no  expectation 
of  it  may  be  indulged  in.  Eliminating  the  railroad  indebtedness, 
eliminating  the  money  transactions  of  those  people  who  have  been 
spoken  of  in  this  Chamber  and  who  were  alluded  to  yesterday  as  the 
men  who  participate  in  transactions  involving  millions  without  prac 
tically  using  a  single  dollar,  we  have  in  many  of  the  States  of  this 


28  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Union,  indeed  in  all  of  them  but  especially  in  the  agricultural  States,  a 
startling  increase  of  mortgage  indebtedness. 

Those  people,  the  farmers  of  this  country,  cannot  do  business 
as  the  millionaires  do  business.  When  they  are  called  upon  to  deal 
with  anybody,  they  must  deal  with  money.  When  their  mortgages 
become  due  they  cannot  fund  their  debts.  They  sometimes  may  be 
able  to  remortgage,  to  add  the  interest  to  the  principal,  to  start  out 
again ;  but  even  in  those  cases  the  time  comes  when  the  property 
value  is  but  little  in  excess,  if  at  all,  of  the  mortgage  debt.  Then  the 
man  to  whom  the  indebtedness  is  due  comes  along  and  forecloses. 

No  bondholder  attempts  to  foreclose  upon  railway  corporations, 
because  he  well  knows  that  he  cannot  afford  to  take  the  property  and 
run  it.  He  relies  upon  the  proposition  that  those  railroad  institutions 
will  be  able  to  get  enough  from  their  patrons  to  pay  interest  on  their 
debt  and  that  satisfies  him. 

When  Senators  talk  to  me  of  the  fact  that  there  is  no  necessity 
for  more  money,  because,  forsooth,  upon  Wall  street  and  in  the 
moneyed  centers  of  this  country  vast  transactions  are  had  without 
the  presence  of  gold  or  silver  or  even  greenbacks  or  other  currency, 
I  say  to  them  that,  while  it  is  true  in  the  instance  which  they  cite, 
it  is  not  true  in  the  more  numerous  instances  in  which  the  middle 
classes  of  this  country  financially  speaking,  the  farmers  and  others, 
those  who  are  not  of  the  wealthy  class,  every  day  participate  and  upon 
which  depend. 

I  have  alluded  to  tariff  legislation  as  being  to  a  large  extent 
responsible  for  this.  The  natural  effect  of  the  monetary  stimulation 
thus  given  to  certain  lines  of  business  was  to  induce  speculation,  and 
the  outcome  of  speculation,  thus  induced,  was  inflation,  and  large 
and  perilous  transactions.  Our  mortgagors  and  debtors  generally 
avail  themselves  of  that  which  was  spoken  of  yesterday, 
and  called  credit,  to  the  fullest  extent,  but  the  time  arrives 
in  many  instances  when  these  people,  called  upon  to  pay 
and  unable  to  get  time,  find  themselves  without  money,  and  the 
indebtedness  of  these  producers  of  the  country  having  thus  alarm 
ingly  increased,  and  the  indebtedness  of  the  entire  nation  having 
augmented,  there  is  nothing  to  meet  the  requirements  of  pay  day. 

In  Europe  there  was  a  catastrophe  which  has  been  spoken  of  here 
very  forcibly.  I  refer  to  the  failure  of  the  Baring  Brothers.  We  are 
told  —  and  I  have  heard  the  argument  made  here  repeatedly  —  that 
that  failure  and  the  speculations  of  Great  Britain  in  the  Argentine 
Republic  and  in  Australia  cannot  afford  any  explanation  of  our  panic, 
because  the  panic  has  not  been  experienced  there.  I  think  the  answer 
to  that  argument  is  plain  and  shall  consider  the  subject  in  a  few 
moments.  At  this  point  I  will  content  myself  with  the  remark  that 
the  financial  troubles  in  Europe  caused  our  many  creditors  there  to 
call  upon  us  and  we  were  compelled  to  pay  our  debts  and  experienced 
the  usual  difficulties  incident  to  such  a  demand  suddenly  made  in  very 
large  sums. 

I  admit  that  before  the  present  Administration  came  into  power 
upon  the  surface  matters  looked  nicely.  It  is  possible  for  one  who 
is  heavily  in  debt  to  live  high  and  excite  a  great  deal  of  comment, 
if  not  admiration,  because  of  his  liberality  and  good  fellowship. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


29 


Especially  is  humanity  prone  to  live  high  when  humanity  is  living 
upon  borrowed  cash,  but  there  ever  comes  an  hour  when  the  money 
must  be  paid,  when  the  mortgage  must  be  foreclosed,  when  the  gentle 
man  who  has  lived  beyond  his  means  must  seek  another  and  less 
prominent  abode  when,  possibly,  he  will  not  be  as  popular  or  congenial 
to  the  many  who  have  gathered  around  him. 

The  selfish  and  illogical  legislation  to  which  we  have  been  treated 
has  resulted  in  the  accumulation  of  a  few  very  large  fortunes,  and 
possibly  in  the  transient  benefit  of  a  very  limited  section  of  the  country. 
And  all  this  has  been  done  not  only  at  a  sacrifice,  but  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  produce  ruin  where  the  conditions,  independent  of  legislation, 
made  prosperity  not  merely  probable,  but  absolutely  natural. 
Then  when  the  McKinley  bill  was  enacted  enormous  and  unreasonable 
importations  were  made  to  escape  the  new  and  increased  duty,  and  the 
country  was  heavily  overstocked ;  and  when  times  commenced  to  be 
rather  stringent  the  auctioneer  was  called  around  and  these  unusual 
importations  were  thrown  upon  the  market,  catastrophe  was  the  nec 
essary  consequence. 

The  ownership  by  our  farmers  of  the  land  upon  which  they  labor 
indicates  prosperity,  unless,  indeed,  the  property  is  mortgaged  to  such 
an  extent  that  the  occupant  is  the  proprietor  only  in  name.  Whenever 
it  comes  to  pass  that  our  farming  communities  occupy  the  position 
of  mere  tenants,  paying  rent  to  bankers  and  capitalists,  our  condition 
will  not  differ  greatly  from  that  of  older  and  more  populous  nations 
to  whom  we  are  in  the  habit  of  extending  our  sympathy.  The 
increase  of  the  tenant  class  is  not  a  good  indication. 

I  have  spoken  of  bankers,  and  a  remark  made  here  yesterday  by 
the  very  distinguished  Senator  who  addressed  the  Chamber  upon  the 
other  side  of  the  question  [Mr.  GRAY]  leads  me  to  say  that  when  I 
speak  of  a  banker  in  connection  with  something  of  which  I  do  not 
approve,  I  do  not  desire  anyone  to  assume  that  I  am  using  that  word 
in  an  invidious  sense.  I  charge  no  class  of  my  countrymen  with 
crime,  and  I  charge  none  of  them  with  intentional  wrongdoing,  save 
in  those  exceptional  instances  which  I  may  note.  I  differ  from  many 
of  them  in  their  views  and  policies,  and  to  some  of  those  differences  I 
am  addressing  my  words. 

I  believe  that  we  are  bound  to  concede  that  a  portion  of  excessively 
wealthy  class  of  this  Republic  do  not  treat  the  Republic  as  they 
should ;  but  I  do  not  thereby  mean  to  assert  that  there  are  no  patriotic 
men  who  are  rich. 

Utilizing  statistics  furnished  by  the  Census  Department,  and  taking 
sixteen  States  pretty  well  scattered,  we  find  that  the  percentages  of 
farmers  who  are  tenants  are  as  follows : 


States. 

1880. 

1890. 

States. 

1880. 

1890. 

IVtaine 

4.32 

7.62 

Rhode  Island  

19.88 

25.00 

New  Hampshire 

8  13 

10  92 

Connecticut 

10.22 

17.68 

Vermont  . 

13.41 

17.62 

New  Jersey  

24.60 

32.11 

Massachusetts 

8  18 

15.06 

Maryland  

30.95 

37.23 

Iowa 

23  83 

29  57 

South  Carolina.... 

50.31 

61.49 

Ohio 

24.96 

37.10 

Georgi  a  

44.85 

58.10 

Wisconsin 

9  05 

13.10 

Tennessee  

34.53 

41.88 

Montana  

5.27 

13.40 

Kansas  

13.13 

33.25 

30  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  BUTLER.     May  I  inquire  of  the  Senator  what  particular 
percentage  he  is  giving? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  am  speaking  of  the  percentage  of 
the  population  who  are  tenant  farmers  —  who  occupy  farms  as  tenants 
—  as  compared  with  the  whole  class. 

These  are  all  I  have  collected.  In  summing  up  these  figures,  Mr. 
President,  it  will  be  noted  that  the  largest  increase  is  found  in  Kansas, 
one  of  the  most  fertile  States  in  the  Union,  and  one  which  until  lately 
has  been  most  loyal  to  the  protective  system,  while  in  1880  but  little 
over  13  per  cent,  of  the  farming  population  were  tenants,  in  1890  over 
33  per  cent,  held  under  that  tenure. 

The  condition  of  affairs  in  the  great  State  of  Ohio  is  almost  as 
bad.  Clearly,  if  the  so-called  prosperity  which  commenced  in  1880 
and  culminated  with  the  overthrow  of  the  Republican  party  in  1892 
is  to  be  considered  such,  it  is  difficult  to  determine  what  condition 
of  affairs  will  be  though  other  than  prosperous.  That  we  are  tending 
towards  bankruptcy  is  obvious.  It  will  not  do  to  escape  the  force  of 
this  argument  by  the  suggestion  that  land  has  increased  in  value, 
and  that  therefore  it  is  natural  that  there  should  be  an  increase  of 
mortgage  indebtedness,  because  I  have  shown  that  the  increase  in  value 
bears  no  proportion  whatever  to  the  augmentation  of  indebtedness. 

I  alluded  a  few  moments  ago  to  Kansas.  The  natural  resources  of 
that  country  are  best  proven  by  the  official  governmental  reports. 
In  December,  1892,  it  was  there  estimated  that  the  wheat  crop  of 
Kansas  would  be  70,831,000  bushels,  valued  at  nearly  $37,000,000. 
This  was  the  largest  output  reported  from  any  State  in  the  Union. 
Minnesota  comes  next  in  amount  with  41,210,000  bushels,  and  Cali 
fornia  comes  next  in  the  value  of  her  crop,  which  was  worth 
$26,626,584. 

I  mention  the  Minnesota  and  California  figures  to  show  how 
prominently  Kansas  led  her  sister  States  in  the  matter  of  wheat 
production.  She  produced  of  corn  during  the  same  year  145,825,000 
bushels  valued  at  $45,205,873,  and  her  product  in  that  regard  was 
only  exceeded  by  the  States  of  Nebraska,  Missouri,  Iowa  and  Illinois. 

The  Agricultural  Department  for  the  same  year  reports  that  the 
Kansas  oat  crop  was  44,094,000  bushels,  valued  at  $11,464,567.  She 
was  only  exceeded  in  this  production  by  Iowa,  Wisconsin  and  Illinois. 
The  same  authority  for  the  same  year  reports  Kansas  as  harvesting 
2,600,000  bushels  of  flaxseed,  valued  at  $1,184,000.  Her  production  in 
bushels  of  this  crop  was  only  exceeded  by  two  States.  Under  these 
conditions  the  farmers  of  Kansas  ought  to  be  growing  rich.  But,  on 
the  contrary,  the  statistics  show  very  clearly  that  they  are  becoming 
daily  more  and  more  immersed  in  debt,  and  this  difficulty  was  in  prog 
ress  long  before  the  Sherman  bill  matured,  and  when  no  one  outside  of 
the  more  faithful  Democracy  contemplated  the  entire  overthrow  of  the 
Republican  organization. 

I  have  heard  Senators  argue  upon  this  floor,  and  I  have  heard 
gentlemen  in  the  other  House  declare,  that  the  fall  in  the  price  of 
wheat  and  corn  was  natural  and  was  due  to  the  law  of  demand 
and  supply. 

The  Senator  from  Kansas  stated  here  a  short  time  ago  that  it 
costs  the  people  of  his  State  more  to  raise  corn  than  they  can  realize 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  31 

for  it.  And  it  is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  that  corn,  because 
of  its  cheapness,  has  been  burned  in  Western  States  in  preference  to 
coal. 

When  the  farmer  must  harvest  his  grain  in  order  to  get  a  fire, 
he  is  not  making  much  progress  in  the  financial  world.  No  condition 
is  natural  or  healthy  under  which  the  farmers  of  a  nation  realize  less 
from  their  crops  than  the  cost  of  raising  the  same.  No  country  can 
hold  its  own  where  such  a  state  of  affairs  long  prevails.  I  do  not 
know  that  any  one  has  been  bold  enough  to  say  that  the  hard  luck 
of  the  farmer  is  wholly  due  to  the  Sherman  bill,  but  the  gentlemen 
who  speak  from  Wall  street  never  fail  to  call  attention  to  the  sad  fate 
that  awaits  the  farmer  if  the  advice  of  the  Wall  street  people  is  not 
followed. 

The  amount  of  sympathy  which  has  been  extended  to  our  granger 
friends  by  our  capitalists  does  not  find  expression  in  the  reduction  of 
interest  upon  mortgages  or  in  the  solution  of  the  farmers'  many 
troubles,  which  usually  result,  and  which,  if  the  present  system  lasts, 
must  result  in  a  foreclosure  and  a  sale. 

When  the  McKinley  bill  was  framed  my  friends  on  the  other  side 
of  this  Chamber  proffered  an  alluring  bait  to  the  farming  community. 
They  said,  we  will  raise  the  tariff  upon  wheat  and  corn.  A  delightful 
time  the  foreign  producer  of  corn  would  have  experienced  had  he  gone 
to  Iowa  to  undersell  the  farmers  of  that  State. 

I  refer  to  these  figures  and  these  facts  to  prove  that  it  is  impossible 
for  anyone  to  correctly  establish  that  this  country  was  in  a  healthy  fiscal 
condition  when  Mr.  Cleveland  was  elected. 

However  we  may  dispute  about  various  matters  which  are  difficult 
of  ascertainment,  such  as  the  issue  discussed  yesterday  as  to  whether 
gold  has  appreciated  or  whether  silver  has  fallen,  however  obscure 
that  may  be,  no  one  will  deny  that  something  is  wrong  if  the  farmer, 
who  arises  early  and  goes  to  bed  late,  who  is  industrious  and  pains 
taking,  intelligent  and  honest,  cannot  realize  any  profit  from  his  toil. 

Senators  seem  to  think  the  depreciated  price  of  wheat  is  in  conse 
quence  of  some  natural  and  beneficent  law,  and  this  fall  in  price  is 
pointed  to  by  many,  as  it  was  pointed  to  by  Mr.  Rothschild  in  the 
Brussels  conference,  as  being  an  indication  of  advancement  and  pros 
perity.  I  absolutely  deny  the  accuracy  of  such  a  deduction.  It  is 
admitted,  as  I  have  said,  that  there  is  room  for  improvement  if  those 
who  till  the  soil  in  this  or  any  other  country,  derive  no  profit  from 
their  exertion,  that  something  is  wrong.  Will  anyone  pretend  to  say 
that  a  system,  whatever  it  may  be,  w'hich  produces  this  condition  not 
in  an  isolated  instance,  but  practically  all  over  the  United  States,  is 
a  wise  and  a  good  system?  Will  any  one  here  now  affirm  that  when 
the  Democratic  party  came  into  power  the  country  was  in  a  truly 
prosperous  condition?  The  mortgage  records  and  the  financial  stand 
ing  of  the  producers  of  this  Republic  negative  such  a  conclusion  and 
demonstrate  that  the  claim  so  often  made  to  that  effect  is  wholly 
unfounded. 

Our  Republican  friends  speak  of  the  shipment  of  gold  as  an  indi 
cation  of  bad  government  upon  the  part  of  the  Democracy.  Do  they 
not  know  that  gold  had  commenced  to  move  not  only  before  the  inaug 
uration  of  Mr.  Cleveland,  but  that  indications  to  that  effect  were  not 


32  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

wanting  when  they  were  announcing  all  over  this  Republic  that  their 
triumph  was  assured?  Do  they  not  know  that  when  Mr.  Cleveland 
left  his  office  at  the  expiration  of  his  first  term  he  left  a  plethoric 
Treasury,  and  that  we  are  today  sitting  in  this  Chamber  seeking  to 
so  legislate  as  to  replenish  that  same  Treasury,  whose  coffers  are 
threatened  with  entire  depletion? 

It  is  idle,  perhaps,  to  seek  to  discern  all  the  causes  of  this  trouble. 
I  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  even  tariff  legislation  has  been  the  sole 
cause,  but  I  do  say  that  the  tendency  of  that  legislation  and  the  specu 
lation  and  inflation  and  unnatural  conditions  which  were  its  legitimate 
offspring,  had  much  to  do  with  this  depression.  But  this  proposition 
I  do  confidently  announce,  that  it  is  not  true  that  this  country  was 
in  a  prosperous  condition  at  the  close  of  the  Republican  Administra 
tion. 

Much  has  been  said  concerning  the  necessity  of  aid  from  the  capi 
talists  of  this  country.  I  admit  it.  I  do  not  know  how  we  could  get 
along  at  all  if  it  were  not  for  the  enterprise  of  some  men  of  large 
means,  and  if  it  were  not  for  the  cupidity  which  suggests  to  others 
the  necessity  for  investing  their  money ;  but  at  the  same  time  the 
assistance  received  from  our  millionaires  certainly  does  not  show  itself 
in  the  reduction  of  mortgages  or  in  the  cancellation  of  indebtedness 
or  in  the  restoration  of  that  confidence  which  the  agricultural  commu 
nities  of  this  country  will  never  feel  until  they  have  been  brought  under 
a  system  which  will  enable  them  to  reduce  their  monetary  obligations 
and  share  in  legitimate  comforts. 

Why  is  it,  in  spite  of  the  able  arguments  of  the  advocates  of  the 
single  gold  standard,  that  the  farmers  all  over  the  Republic  —  of 
course  there  are  exceptions,  but  I  am  speaking  of  them  as  a  class  — 
and  laborers  generally  are  not  in  favor  of  legislation  which  interferes 
with  the  circulation  of  silver  or  tends  to  decrease  its  use  ?  They  know 
that  they  are  in  debt,  and  they  beHeve  that  gold  is  appreciating  from 
day  to  day,  and  yet,  that  their  mortgages  are  increasing  because  of 
the  accumulation  of  interest  which  they  cannot  meet  for  their  powers 
are  taxed  to  get  a  bare  subsistence,  without  provision  for  defraying 
interest  or  principal. 

I  regard  it  as  absurd  to  claim  that  the  Sherman  bill  and  the 
presence  of  so  much  silver  interferes  with  our  prosperity.  We  have 
coined  silver  in  circulation  and  we  have  uncoined  silver  in  the  Treasury. 
The  coined  silver,  I  suppose  it  will  be  conceded,  does  not  hurt  anyone. 
It  has  often  been  said  that  a  silver  dollar  buys  as  much  of  any 
commodity  as  a  gold  dollar.  It  has  the  stamp  of  the  dollar  upon  it 
as  well  as  the  greenback,  and  has  more  intrinsic  worth  than  the 
paper  upon  wttiich  the  greenback  is  printed.  Nor  is  it  likely  that  the 
stock  of  uncoined  silver  in  the  Treasury  is  causing  the  trouble  com 
plained  of.  It  has  been  well  said  that  if  all  the  uncoined  silver  were 
placed  upon  a  ship  and  sunk  in  the  midst  of  the  Atlantic,  the  credit 
of  this  Government  would  not  be  in  the  slightest  degree  impaired. 

When  it  was  suggested  that  the  losses  sustained  by  England  in 
the  Argentine  Republic,  involving  perhaps  ^200,000,000,  and  the  vast 
failures  in  Australia,  which  caused  the  closing  of  Baring  Brothers, 
accounted  for  our  distress,  we  were  met  with  the  answer  that  if  this 
were  true  England  must  have  suffered  also,  and  that  her  financial 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  33 

attitude  should  be  even  more  disturbed  than  ours.  We  all  know  that 
when  England  felt  the  necessity  of  obtaining  coin  she  looked  around 
to  get  it,  and  there  was  but  one  country  in  the  world  able  to  supply 
her.  Then  European  investors  commenced  to  withdraw,  and  without 
considering  the  real  cause  of  the  situation  we  imagined  that  we  were 
losing  money  when  w*e  were  simply  paying  our  debts.  Our  people 
became  scared ;  the  bankers,  instead  of  loaning  at  higher  rates  of 
interest,  as  they  should  have  done,  closed  up  and  refused  to  permit 
their  deposits  to  go  into  circulation.  That  the  national  banks  in  New 
York  violated  the  law  no  one  denies.  The  resolution  introduced  to 
investigate  such  violation  sleeps  the  sleep  of  the  just  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Committee  on  Finance. 

I  cannot  bring  myself  to  believe  that  the  Sherman  law  is  responsible 
for  our  condition  unless  to  the  extent  that  the  public  have  believed 
the  attacks  made  upon  the  measure  by  the  gentlemen  who  are  now 
urging  its  repeal.  True,  the  friends  of  silver,  those  who  are  really  so, 
did  not  and  do  not  believe  the  Sherman  law  to  be  perfect.  But  they 
Jid  not  and  do  not  like  it,  because  they  believed  and  believe  that 
something  better  was  and  is  due  to  silver,  and  they  believed  and  believe 
that  the  obedience  to  constitutional  mandates  and  organic  regulations 
prescribed  by  the  fathers  of  this  Republic  necessitate  more  favorable 
legislation. 

This  measure  has  caused  the  consumption  of  some  of  'the  silver  of 
the  country.  Mines  remained  in  operation  because  of  its  provisions, 
and,  above  all,  its  enactment  was  evidence  that  we  did  not  intend  to 
abandon  silver ;  it  was  evidence  worth  more  than  a  naked  promise. 
The  man  who  has  the  power  to  perform  and  gives  promise  in  lieu 
of  that  performance,  cannot  blame  those  who  refuse  to  trust  him. 

THE  TARIFF   MUST  BE  REFORMED. 

Our  Republican  friends  must  not  flatter  themselves  that  We  do 
not  intend  to  reform  the  tariff.  I  speak  upon  this  subject  because 
but  little  has  been  said  upon  it,  and  one  branch  of  my  presentation 
is  designed  to  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  our  duty  as  Democrats 
to  stand  upon  the  Democratic  platform,  and  while  proceeding  in  that 
direction,  I  wish  to  illustrate  my  position,  and  I  also  desire  to  relieve 
my  Republican  friends,  who  have  been  obviously  suffering  because 
they  fear  we  will  not  reform  the  tariff.  I  design  to  show  them  that 
there  is  no  ground  for  this  apprehension ;  that  we  do  design,  or  that 
I  at  least  hope,  to  alter  our  tariff  laws  in  accord  with  our  promises. 
I  will  not  speak  for  others  now. 

If  I  were  away  from  this  Chamber,  if  I  had  never  come  here,  I 
should  probably  have  said,  speaking  of  my  party,  "  we  "  will  reform 
the  tariff,  but  as  it  is  I  do  not  feel  authorized  to  speak  for  the 
party  for  two  reasons :  first,  because  I  am  a  very  immaterial  factor 
in  its  policies  and  administration,  and  secondly,  because  platforms  are 
construed  by  strict-construction  Democrats  in  a  most  remarkable  and 
liberal  manner. 

We  are  constantly  hearing  suggestions  to  the  effect  that  we  fear 
to  legislate  upon  the  tariff,  and  I  noticed  one  Senator  upon  the  other 
side  of  the  Chamber,  for  whom  I  have  the  greatest  respect  and  admira 
tion,  shake  his  finger  at  us,  not  of  course  in  anger,  but  in  emphasis, 


34  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

saying  at  the  same  time  that  we  dared  not  do  so.  Perhaps  he  may 
be  right,  but  I  desire  him  to  apply  his  declaration  to  others  than 
myself.  It  is  sufficient  for  my  present  purpose  to  note  that  the  Chicago 
platform  positively  and  emphatically  denounces  the  McKinley  law. 
The  language  upon  the  subject  is  unequivocal,  at  least  I  think  so.  I 
do  not  know  what  the  hereafter  may  develop;  I  cannot  say  how  the 
platform  may  be  construed  by  well-meaning  and  ingenious,  but,  as  I 
think,  mistaken  Senators.  It  is  worded  thus :  • 

We  denounce  Republican  protection  as  a  fraud,  a  robbery  of  the  great 
majority  of  the  American  people  for  the  benefit  of  the  few.  We  declare  it  to  be 
a  fundamental  principle  of  the  Democratic  party  that  the  Federal  Government 
has  no  constitutional  power  to  impose  and  collect  tariff  duties,  except  for  the 
purpose  of  revenue  only,  and  we  demand  that  the  collection  of  such  taxes  shall  be 
limited  to  the  necessities  of  the  Government  when  honestly  and  economically 
administered. 

We  denounce  the  McKinley  tariff  law  enacted  by  the  Fifty-first  Congress 
as  the  culminating  atrocity  of  class  legislation;  we  indorse  the  efforts  made 
by  the  Democrats  of  the  present  Congress  to  modify  its  most  oppressive  features 
in  the  direction  of  free  raw  materials  and  cheaper  manufactured  goods  that  enter 
into  general  consumption,  and  we  promise  its  repeal  as  one  of  the  beneficent 
results  that  will  follow  the  action  of  the  people  in  intrusting  power  to  the  Demo 
cratic  party.  Since  the  McKinley  tariff  went  into  operation  there  have  been  ten 
reductions  of  the  wages  of  the  laboring  man  to  one  increase.  We  deny  that 
there  has  been  any  increase  of  prosperity  to  the  country  since  that  tariff  went 
into  operation,  and  we  point  to  the  dullness  and  distress,  the  wage  reductions 
and  strikes  in  the  iron  trade  as  the  best  possible  evidence  that  no  such  pros 
perity  has  resulted  from  the  McKinley  act. 

Then  follows  another  announcement,  which  I  commend  to  my 
Democratic  brethren  who  have  been  psychologicalized  by  the  eloquence 
of  the  other  side  upon  the  subject  of  the  alleged  prosperity  of  the 
United  States  at  the  close  of  the  late  Administration.  I  read  • 

We  call  the  attention  of  thoughtful  Americans  to  the  fact  that  after  thirty 
years  of  restrictive  taxes  against  the  importation  of  foreign  wealth  in  exchange 
for  our  agricultural  surplus,  the  homes  and  farms  of  the  country  have  become 
burdened  with  a  real-estate  mortgage  debt  of  over  $2,500,000,000,  exclusive  of 
all  other  forms  of  indebtedness;  that  in  one  of  the  chief  agricultural  States  of 
the  West  there  appears  a  real-estate  mortgage  debt  averaging  $165  per  capita 
of  the  total  population,  and  that  similar  conditions  and  tendencies  are  shown 
to  exist  in  other  agricultural  exporting  States.  We  denounce  a  policy  which 
fosters  no  industry  so  much  as  it  does  that  of  sheriff. 

I  presume  that,  notwithstanding  this  declaration  upon  our  part, 
which  of  course  constitutes  no  estoppel  upon  members  of  other  parties, 
we  will  hear  that  the  Sherman  law  is  solely  responsible  for  the 
so-called  terrible  condition  of  affairs  and  that  none  of  our  wloes 
came  on  or  were  anticipated  in  consequence  of  any  other  legislation. 
We  shall  have  the  assertion,  as  we  have  had  it,  that  the  author  of 
our  distress  is  the  Sherman  act,  although  we  solemnly  proclaimed  in 
the  platform  upon  which  we  went  before  the  American  people  that  the 
day  of  disaster  was  then  upon  us,  that  hard  times  were  coming  because 
of  previous  tariff  laws. 

It  is  sufficient  to  call  attention  to  the  platform  already  read. 

The  Democratic  party  said,  "  We  denounce  Republican  protection 
as  a  fraud,  a  robbery  of  the  great  majority  of  the  American  people  for 
the  benefit  of  the  few,"  and  the  people  last  November  said  "  amen." 

The  Chicago  platform  declared  it  to  be  a  fundamental  principle 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  At.  WHITE.  35 

of  the  Democratic  party  that  "  the  Federal  Government  has  no  consti 
tutional  power  to  impose  and  collect  tariff  duties,  except  for  the 
purpose  of  revenue  only ;"  and  it  is  demanded  that  "  the  collection  of 
such  taxes  should  be  limited  to  the  necessities  of  the  Government 
honestly  and  economically  administered." 

To  this  declaration,  also,  the  people  said  "  amen." 

The  same  platform  used  this  expressive  phraseology :  "  We 
denounce  the  McKinley  tariff  law  enacted  by  the  Fifty-first  Congress 
as  the  culminating  atrocity  of  class  legislation,"  and  the  people  after 
due  consideration  rendered  the  verdict,  finding  as  a  fact  that  the 
McKinley  tariff  was  and  is  the  culminating  atrocity  of  class  legislation. 
There  is  no  appeal  from  the  decree  thus  entered,  and  it  is  therefore 
not  only  the  duty  of  the  Democratic  party  but  the  duty  of  every  member 
of  Congress  to  immediately  get  rid  of  a  piece  of  legislation  which 
the  free  and  incorruptible  voters  of  the  United  States  have  branded 
as  an  outrage,  a  fraud,  an  atrocity. 

It  is  little  more  than  audacity  to  assert  that  the  people  have  changed 
their  views.  This  favorite  argument  of  platform  repudiators  has  no 
more  effect  upon  my  judgment  and  will  have  no  more  effect  upon  my 
vote  in  this  instance  than  in  the  case  of  silver.  We  have  come  here 
pledged  to  do  this  work. 

It  is  our  solemn  obligation  to  immediately  proceed  to  get  rid  of 
the  McKinley  bill  or  to  resign  and  go  home  to  a  people  who  have 
trusted  us  in  vain. 

Our  President,  in  1887,  by  the  most  convincing  logic,  satisfied  the 
country  that  the  Republican  protection  system  was  wrong.  He  was 
ardent  in  his  advocacy  of  tariff  reform.  He  was  emphatic  certainly 
when  the  votes  were  counted  last  November,  and  although  he  made 
but  short  reference  in  his  recent  message  to  the  "  culminating  atrocity 
of  class  legislation,"  I  have  no  doubt  that  his  enthusiasm  has  not 
abated,  and  believe  that  he  is  as  anxious  as  I  am  to  procure  the 
repeal  of  the  McKinley  bill,  but  I  suppose  he  will  favor  a  substitute. 
I  will.  I  presume  that  I  may  be  permitted,  without  danger,  to  say 
that  a  more  extended  treatment  of  revenue  matters  in  the  President's 
late  message  would  have  been  congenial  to  those  whom  he  converted 
to  the  cause  of  tariff  reform.  Doubtless,  however,  Mr.  Cleveland  con 
cluded  that  the  country,  having  settled  the  question  in  the  most  direct 
possible  manner,  did  not  care  for  further  argumentation. 

When  we  legislate  on  the  tariff  we  will  be  just.  We  are  not 
seeking  to  destroy  anyone.  We  wish  to  promote  our  country's  interests 
and  to  make  even  our  Republican  brethren  happy,  wealthy  and  wise. 

I  am  somewhat  astonished  at  the  attitude  of  my  Republican  friends 
concerning  the  British  lion.  I  have  no  special  affection  for  the  beast, 
but  am  not  so  bigoted  that  I  cannot  see  anything  good  in  British 
legislation,  and  for  this  reason,  I  have  paid  considerable  attention 
to  her  fiscal  laws,  and  believe  with  my  party  that  we  should  not  be 
prevented  from  reducing  the  tariff  merely  because  England  reached 
a  similar  determination  when  she  was  upon  the  verge  of  bankruptcy. 
But  throughout  the  last  campaign  there  was  not  a  Republican  orator 
whose  voice  was  heard,  or  whose  words  I  read,  who  did  not  say 
that  the  Democratic  party  was  subservient  to  England.  We  were 
assailed  in  the  most  savage  way.  It  was  charged  that  British  gold 


36  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

was  in  our  pockets,  British  policies  in  our  heads.  We  were  un-Re- 
publican,  tin-Democratic,  un-American,  and  fit  for  any  fate.  But  now 
I  notice  that  the  British  lion  domestically  rubs  against  my  Republican 
friends.  With  tender  hand  they  stroke  its  mighty  head,  and  with 
soothing  balsam  they  seek  to  eliminate  the  irregularity  of  that  append 
age  which  they  so  lately  were  so  prone  to  twist.  [Laughter.]  This 
reconciliation  and  conversion  is  even  more  startling  than  the  fall  of 
silver  men. 

I  feel  more  than  ordinary  interest  upon  the  subject  of  the  tariff. 
The  Republican  organization  in  my  State,  through  its  State  com 
mittee,  issued  a  challenge  to  me  to  debate  the  tariff  issue  with  a  Repub 
lican  of  marked  ability  and  reputation,  and  it  was  expressly  provided 
in  the  proposition  that  no  other  question  should  be  discussed.  The 
committee  declared  that  to  be  the  leading  issue  of  the  day,  and  although 
T  preferred  to  consider  other  subjects  as  well,  my  desires  in  this  regard 
were  not  heeded,  and  upon  my  acceptance  the  debate  was  proceeded 
with  as  originally  proposed.  We  canvassed  the  State  of  California, 
speaking  of  the  tariff  only.  Naturally,  therefore,  I  felt  somewhat 
lonesome  upon  coming  here  and  hearing  so  little  concerning  that 
tariff  which  both  parties  seemed  to  believe  was  so  important  up  to  the 
date  whereon  we  received  the  popular  verdict  in  our  favor  mainly  as 
the  consequence  of  our  position  upon  that  question. 

THE  ACT  OF   1873. 

Much  has  been  said  during  this  debate  as  to  the  demonetization 
of  silver  in  18/3,  and  the  distinguished  senior  Senator  from  Ohio 
[Mr.  SHERMAN]  has  been  criticised  here,  as  well  as  elsewhere,  because 
of  his  participancy  in  that  legislation. 

Demonetization  of  silver  Was  a  great  mistake.  It  has  been  called 
a  crime.  But  I  dislike  to  impute  criminality  to  gentlemen  who 
undoubtedly  had  the  best  intentions.  The  Senator  from  Ohio  has  been 
long  an  active  opponent  of  silver.  He  believes  that  the  financial  theories 
of  Wall  and  Lombard  street  are  sound,  and  he  has  voted  and  acted 
in  accordance  with  his  faith.  It  is  undoubted  that  there  was  much  inad 
vertent  voting  when  the  act  of  1873  was  passed. 

Mr.  John  P.  Young,  in  several  very  elaborate  and  carefully  prepared 
articles  in  recent  numbers  of  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle,  furnishes 
much  information  taken  from  the  records  calculated  to  show  that  the 
demonetization  clause  was  not  noted  even  by  the  most  prominent  of 
our  Government  officials.  I  will  utilize  in  the  course  of  my  remarks 
some  of  the  matter  which  he  has  collected,  together  with  his  comments 
thereon.  On  the  3rd  of  October,  1873,  President  Grant,  in  writing 
to  Mr.  Cowdery  on  resumption  of  specie  payment,  said : 

I  wonder  that  silver  is  not  already  coming  into  the  market  to  supply  the 
deficiency  in  the  circulating  medium.  Experience  has  proven  that  it  takes  about 
forty  millions  of  fractional  currency  to  make  the  small  change  necessary  for 
the  transaction  of  the  business  of  the  country.  Silver  will  gradually  take  the 
place  of  this  currency,  and  further,  will  become  the  standard  of  values,  which 
will  be  hoarded  in  a  small  way.  I  estimate  that  this  will  consume  from  two 
hundred  millions  to  three  hundred  millions,  in  time,  of  this  species  of  circulat 
ing  medium.  I  confess  to  a  desire  to  see  a  limited  hoarding  of  money,  but  I 
want  to  see  a  hoarding  of  something  that  is  a  standard  of  value  the  world  over. 
Silver  is  this. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  37 

Mr.  Ruggles,  President  of  the  New  York  Chamber  of  Commerce, 
reported  to  the  body  over  which  he  presided  in  a  manner  demonstrating 
that  he  did  not  understand  what  had  been  accomplished.  The  follow 
ing  is  an  extract  from  his  address : 

The  bill  as  introduced  proposes  to  reduce  the  weight  of  the  silver  dollar 
from  412^  grains  to  384  grains.  The  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  State  of 
New  York,  on  examining  and  considering  that  provision  by  resolution  onlv 
transmitted  to  Congress  in  June  last,  respectfully  recommended  that  the  weight 
of  the  silver  dollar  should  be  made  precisely  equivalent  to  that  of  the  5-franc 
silver  coin  of  Europe. 

The  frequently  cited  expression  of  Mr.  Elaine  to  the  effect  that 
he  knew  nothing  with  reference  to  the  bill,  and  the  testimony  of 
Judge  Thurman,  demonstrated  a  lack  of  knowledge  upon  their  part. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  investigate  the  conduct  of  those  who 
were  engaged  in  the  work  of  demonetization,  and  I  leave  the  subject, 
stating  that  I  do  not  believe  there  was  as  full  and  complete  a  declara 
tion  of  the  real  effect  of  the  bill  presented  by  those  who  understand  it 
as  its  importance  required. 

I  am  inclined  to  conclude  that  the  act  of  1873  was,  to  use  the 
language  of  an  able  writer,  rather  a  blunder  than  a  crime.  Our  people 
were  then  discussing  an  international  agreement.  Thirty  years  ago 
that  subject  was  a  matter  of  common  talk.  Uniformity  of  coinage 
seemed  to  be  sought  for.  The  Senator  from  Missouri  [Mr.  COCKRELL] 
has  already  mentioned  this  fact.  Some  further  investigation  appears 
to  me  to  justify  the  statement  that  we  lost  our  heads  at  that  time, 
because  of  our  desire  to  procure  an  international  agreement.  In  1857 
Congress  passed  an  act,  under  which  Prof.  Alexander  was  sent  to 
England  to  try  and  secure  bimetallism  in  a  limited  form,  but  our 
British  cousins  were  as  firm  then  as  they  are  now  and  laughed 
at  us. 

In  1863  the  International  Statistical  Congress,  already  mentioned  in 
this  debate,  convened  at  Brussels.  There  were  there  thirteen  or  four 
teen  nations  represented.  Our  delegate  was  Mr.  Samuel  Ruggles. 
Resolutions  were  adopted  under  which  the  first  international  monetary 
congress  was  held  at  Paris  during  the  Universal  Exposition  of  1867. 
Nineteen  nations  were  there  represented,  Mr.  Ruggles  appearing  in 
our  behalf.  The  monometallists  ruled  supreme,  and  the  single  gold 
standard  was  recommended  as  an  international  unit  of  coinage.  This 
movement  Mr.  Ruggles  headed,  and  in  1868  bills  were  introduced  to 
carry  out  these  suggestions.  The  Senate  Finance  Committee  ordered 
a  favorable  report  upon  one  of  these  bills,  and  the  able  Senator  from 
Ohio  [Mr.  SHERMAN]  did  not  use  any  equivocal  language  in  the 
report  which  he  then  drew  up.  He  said : 

The  single  standard  of  gold  is  an  American  idea  yielded  reluctantly  by 
France  and  other  countries  where  silver  is  the  chief  standard  of  value.  The 
impossible  attempt  to  maintain  two  standards  of  value  has  given  rise  to  nearly 
all  the  debasement  of  coinage  for  the  last  two  centuries. 

He  also  remarked : 

The  opportunity  is  now  offered  to  the  United  States  to  secure  a  common 
international  standard  in  the  metal  most  valuable  of  all  others,  best  Adapted 
for  coinage,  mainly  the  product  of  our  own  country  and  in  conformity  with 
the  policy  constantly  urged  by  our  statesmen  and  now  agreed  to  by  the  oldest 


38  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

and  wealthiest  nations  of  the  world.     Surely  we  should  not  hesitate  for  trifling 
considerations  to  secure  so  important  an  object. 

He  further  said : 

France,  whose  standard  is  adopted,  makes  a  new  coin  similar  to  our  half 
eagles.  She  yielded  to  pur  demand  for  the  sole  standard  of  gold,  and  during 
the  whole  conference  evinced  the  most  earnest  wish  to  secure  the  co-operation 
of  the  United  States  in  the  great  object  of  the  unification  of  coinage. 

Mr.  SHERMAN  added  that  he  had  received  assurances  that  if  the 
United  States  would  lead  the  way  our  example  would  be  followed 
by  other  nations,  and  he  mentioned  England  especially.  He  dwelt 
upon  the  object  of  encouraging  the  use  of  gold,  which  was  so  largely 
produced  at  home. 

No  wonder  international  monetary  conferences  convened  at  our 
suggestion  have  proven  failures.  The  truth  is  that  we  are  responsible, 
as  I  shall  attempt  to  argue  further  along,  for  the  prevailing  conditions 
with  reference  to  silver.  We  struck  the  blow ;  we  did  the  initial  act 
which  has  rendered  it  almost  impossible  to  recuperate  so  far  as  inter 
national  bimetallic  agreement  is  concerned. 

Not  only  are  our  statesmen  responsible  for  the  consequences  fol 
lowing  the  act  of  1873,  but  it  appears  by  indubitable  testimony  that 
we  primarily  suggested  in  an  international  conference  that  there  should 
be  a  single  standard.  We  have  done  our  best  to  destroy  silver. 
We  have  exerted  our  fullest  powers  to  drive  it  out  of  the  world's 
monetary  systems,  and  we  have  been  so  potent  for  evil  that  we  have 
succeed  in  inducing  the  great  commercial  nations  of  the  earth 
to  acquiesce  in  our  illicit  suggestion.  Is  it  not  time  to  reform  ?  Have 
we  not  reached  a  point  where  it  is  our  duty  to  retrace  our  steps  ? 

A  majority  of  the  present  Congress  affirm  that  they  are  in  favor 
of  bimetallism.  If  this  be  true  let  us  act  as  though  we  had  confidence 
in  ourselves,  as  though  we  meant  what  we  say.  Let  us  practice  what 
we  preach.  The  powerful  and  persistent  efforts  of  the  able  senior 
Senator  from  Ohio,  covering  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century,  have 
borne  such  fruit,  that  he  not  only  dominates  the  councils  of  his  own 
party,  but  commands  a  battalion  among  whose  membership  are  to 
be  found  prominent  and  influential  Democratic  statesmen.  I  say  this 
to  the  credit  of  the  Senator  from  Ohio  and  as  showing  that  the  country 
has  not  estimated  him  amiss  when  it  has  considered  him  one  of  its 
foremost  citizens. 

At  this  time,  Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  make  a  remark,  lest  I 
should  overlook  it,  with  reference  to  something  said  yesterday  by  the 
Senator  from  Delaware  [Mr.  GRAY]. 

It  was  stated  that  the  fact  that  the  business  of  this  country  is 
done  largely  upon  a  credit  basis  is  an  indication  of  our  advanced 
civilization.  This  may  be  granted  without  interfering  with  my  posi 
tion.  Remarks  were  also  made  at  the  same  time  as  to  our  ability 
to  carry  on  the  most  extensive  transactions  without  the  use  of  money. 

I  have  said,  and  I  now  repeat  with  reference  to  the  last  propo 
sition,  that  when  we  apply  this  statement  to  the  men  wfho  control 
the  finances  of  the  United  States,  who  dictate  largely  its  fiscal  poli 
cies,  who  make  contracts  involving  twenty,  thirty  or  forty  millions 
of  dollars,  this  may  all  be  done;  but  when  we  are  brought  in  contact 
with  persons  occupying  that  station  in  life  which  the  man  of  limited 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  39 

means  occupies,  then  this  cannot  be  done,  and  the  latter  class  is 
immense  not  only  in  those  States  where  the  leading  capitalists  are  to 
be  found,  but  the  membership  is  greater  as  we  travel  westward  over 
those  great  and  fertile  plains  upon  which  the  farmer  tills  in  vain  the 
productive  corn,  and  strives  from  morning  until  night  to  earn  that 
money  which  he  is  compelled  to  pay  in  gold  dollars  to  the  man  who 
has  a  mortgage  upon  his  place. 

The  able  Senator  cited  the  condition  of  France.  It  was  said  that 
the  circumstance  that  the  circulation  per  capita  in  France  was  $38, 
or  thereabouts  and  in  this  country  much  less,  demonstrates  that  our 
civilization  is  further  advanced. 

I  am  not  certain  whether,  if  we  take  into  consideration  all  sur 
rounding  circumstances,  we  can  truly  say  that  France  is  in  a  backward 
condition,  even  if  we  accept  our  civilization  as  a  standard.  Mr. 
President,  let  us  remember  that  France  is  not  of  immense  area.  Let 
us  recollect  her  population  per  square  mile  as  compared  with  ours. 
Let  us  reflect  upon  her  history.  Her  soil  has  been  tilled  over  and 
over  again  by  struggling  millions  during  centuries.  From  the  time 
when  Julius  Caesar  brought  within  her  confines  the  standard  of  Rome 
to  the  hour  when  the  great  Napoleon  took  from  their  various  avoca 
tions  his  mighty  army  to  do  battle  with  the  combined  nations  of  the 
time,  France  was  in  suffering,  turmoil,  and  bloodshed.  The  horrors  of 
her  revolution,  the  dull  thud  of  the  guillotine's  ax,  thousand?  impris 
oned,  millions  in  poverty,  uncounted  numbers  in  exile,  constitute  trials 
through  which  she  passed  unknown  and  never  to  be  known  in  our 
country. 

Besides  all  this,  she  was  compelled  to  pay  Germany  an  immense 
sum  exacted  as  the  issue  of  a  devastating  conflict.  Many  of  the 
ablest  financiers  believed  that  she  would  never  be  able  to  pay  this 
tribute  and  maintain  herself;  yet  she  not  only  accomplished  this,  but 
she  threw  from  her  the  rule  of  a  titled  dynasty,  and  although  her 
people  had  before  sought  refuge  in  vain  in  republicanism,  and  notwith 
standing  the  criticisms  of  historians  and  thoughtful  men,  she  was  able 
to  emerge  from  disaster,  and  stands  today  almost  peerless  among 
enlightened  and  democratic  peoples. 

While  I  am  not  prepared  to  admit  that  any  country  betrays  the 
progress,  advancement,  and  happiness  to  be  found  here,  notwithstanding 
all  our  folly  and  want  of  statesmanship,  still  I  am  not  obvious  to 
the  difference  in  our  natural  surroundings  as  contrasted  with  those  of 
France  and  other  States. 

We  must  not  be  unmindful  of  the  freedom  which  we  have  so 
long  enjoyed,  not  only  with  reference  to  legislative  enactments,  but 
that  which  we  derive  from  a  beneficent  God ;  blessings  of  soil  and  cli 
mate  and  enlarged  jurisdiction,  emanating  not  from  human  tribunals, 
but  remaining  in  spite  of  them. 

Again  it  is  a  poor  rule  which  does  not  work  both  ways. 

The  Senator  who  made  use  of  the  arguments  which  I  have  just 
been  attempting  to  answer,  was  asked  what  he  thought  of  those  nations 
where  the  circulation  was  $3  per  capita.  The  truth  is,  we  must  take 
a  thousand  circumstances  into  consideration  other  than  the  volume  of 
currency  in  order  to  arrive  at  a  correct  conclusion  as  to  this  very 
interesting  matter. 


40  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

THE   PLATFORM    OF  THE   PARTIES. 

Much  has  been  said  in  regard  to  the  duty  of  the  Democratic  party 
with  reference  to  its  platform  and  the  corresponding  duty  of  the 
Republican  party.  I  do  not  desire  to  provoke  criticism  on  the  other 
side  of  this  Chamber  by  a  discussion  of  the  Republican  platform.  I 
shall  allude  to  it  in  passing,  but  I  do  not  consider  myself  competent 
to  instruct  the  Senators  who  occupy  seats  upon  the  other  side  of  the 
Chamber,  nor  indeed  those  who  occupy  seats  here.  I  do  not  know 
how  my  Republican  friends  may  regard  their  obligations  in  this 
respect,  but  my  belief  is  that  each  Senator  feels  that  his  platform  is 
binding  upon  him. 

Said  the  Democratic  convention: 

We  denounce  the  Republican  legislation  known  as  the  Sherman  act  of  1890 
as  a  cowardly  makeshift,  fraught  with  possibilities  of  danger  in  the  future 
which  should  make  all  of  its  supporters,  as  well  as  its  author,  anxious  for  its 
speedy  repeal. 

And  I  concede  that  its  authors  are  rather  anxious.  Continuing, 
the  platform  says : 

We  hold  to  the  use  of  both  gold  and  silver  as  the  standard  money  of  the 
country  — 

Not  the  use  to  which  corn  or  wheat  or  oats  or  other  things  are 
devoted,  but  we  hold  to  the  use  as — 

the  standard  money  of  the  country,  and  to  the  coinage  of  both  gold  and  silver, 
without  discriminating  against  either  metal  or  charge  for  mintage,  but  the  dollar 
unit  of  coinage  of  both  metals  must  be  of  equal  intrinsic  and  exchangeable  value, 
or  be  adjusted  throueh  international  agreement  or  by  such  safeguards  of  legis 
lation  as  shall  insure  the  maintenance  of  the  parity  of  the  two  metals  and  the 
equal  power  of  every  dollar  at  all  times  in  the  markets  and  in  the  payment  of 
debts ;  and  we  demand  that  all  paper  currency  shall  be  kept  at  par  with  and 
redeemable  in  such  coin.  We  insist  upon  this  policy  as  especially  necessary  for 
the  protection  of  the  farmers  and  laboring  classes,  the  first  and  most  defenseless 
victims  of  unstable  money  and  a  fluctuating  currency. 

Mr.  President,  it  has  been  suggested  that  we  must  take  one  clause 
of  our  law,  our  political  statute,  one  part  of  it,  the  first  part  of  it.  It 
is  said  this  is  plain :  "  We  denounce  the  Republican  legislation  known 
as  the  Sherman  act  of  1890  as  a  cowardly  makeshift,  fraught  with 
possibilities  of  danger  in  the  future  which  should  make  all  of  its  sup 
porters,  as  well  as  its  author,  anxious  for  its  speedy  repeal." 

It  is  argued,  this  is  clear.  Why  not  act  upon  it?  Mr.  President, 
why  not  act  upon  half  of  a  contract?  Why  not  take  a  legal  instru 
ment  in  which  different  obligations  are  imposed  and  enforce  the 
undisputed  portion,  leaving  the  remainder  to  the  future?  When  we 
are  brought  into  court  and  contend  as  to  the  meaning  of  an  instru 
ment,  why  not  take  the  first  clause,  let  the  court  determine  the  effect 
of  that,  and  leave  the  man  who  depends  upon  the  second  clause  to 
await  the  charity  of  the  world,  or  another  occasion  to  be  designated 
by  his  opponent  for  the  consideration  of  that  portion  of  the  obligation 
most  important  to  him. 

Our  platform  must  be  construed  in  pari  materia.  Unless  we  read 
it  together  and  give  to  every  syllable  in  it  that  force  which  we  can 
give  we  have  not  read  it  correctly.  As  well  might  we  say  that  we 
will  legislate  upon  silver  without  reference  to  the  repeal  of  the  Sher- 


SPHHCHHS  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  41 

man  law,  and  thus  ignore  the  requirement  of  the  platform  concerning 
the  repeal,  as  to  state  that  we  will  legislate  as  to  repeal  and  do  nothing 
regarding  the  remainder  of  the  rule  of  conduct  prescribed  for  our 
guidance. 

The  Republican  platform  was  worded  thus : 

The  American  people  from  tradition  and  interest  favor  bimetallism — 

I  think  I  have  heard  some  one  announce  that  from  interest  the 
American  people  should  not  favor  bimetallism,  but  I  am  not  prepared 
to  say,  in  view  of  the  prevailing  rules  of  interpretation,  whether  that 
gentleman  was  on  or  off  of  the  platform — 

and  the  Republican  party  demands  the  use  of  both  gold  and  silver  as  standard 
money— 

So  we  shake  hands  across  this  friendly  chasm,  and  we  agree  that 
we  are  all  in  favor  of  gold  and  silver  as  standard  money— 

with  such  restrictions  and  under  such  provisions,  to  be  determined  by  legisla 
tion,  as  will  secure  the  maintenance  of  the  parity  of  values  of  the  two  metals, 
so  that  the  purchasing  and  the  debt-paying  power  of  the  dollar,  whether  of 
silver,  gold,  or  paper,  shall  be  at  all  times  equal.  The  interest  of  the  producers 
of  the  country,  its  farmers  and  its  workingmen,  demand  that  every  dollar,  paper 
or  coin,  issued  by  the  Government  shall  be  as  good  as  any  other. 

You  were  all  solicitous  for  the  farmers  and  the  workingmen,  and 
you  were  solicitous  in  good  faith,  but  you  do  not  seem  to  be  able 
to  satisfy  the  farmers  and  the  laborers  of  the  country  that  the  pecu 
liar  construction  for  which  you  contend  constitutes  a  compliance  with 
those  promises  which  brought  you  their  votes.  The  Senator  from 
Georgia  [Mr.  GORDON],  for  whose  ability  and  learning  I  have  always 
had  the  greatest  regard,  avers  that  the  Democratic  party  is  bound  tu 
repeal  as  the  consequence  of  its  pledges.  Yes,  that  is  true;  and  it  is 
bound  to  do  something  else,  concurrently  with  repeal,  as  the  conse 
quence  of  its  pledges. 

Senators  upon  this  side  of  the  Chamber  and  prominent  members 
of  the  House  have  made  statements  according  with  that  view,  and 
have  declared  that  they  stand  upon  the  Democratic  platform  with 
both  feet.  Mr.  President,  looking  at  this  matter  as  I  do  —  and  under 
stand  me,  I  am  criticising  no  one  in  unfriendly  phrase  —  the  platform 
looks  to  me  as  if  it  had  been  trodden  upon  by  a  great  many  with  both 
feet.  [Laughter.] 

The  Chicago  platform,  in  so  many  words,  announced  it  to  be  the 
doctrine  of  Democracy  that  gold  and  silver  constitute  the  standard 
money  of  the  country,  and  that  both  must  be  coined  without  discrim 
inating  against  either. 

Here  let  me  pause  to  make  a  suggestion.  However  much  we  may 
differ  upon  the  construction  of  this  platform,  one  thing  is  patent, 
that  both  metals  must  be  treated  alike.  Throughout  the  plank  which 
I  have  read  permeates  this  idea,  that  the  Democratic  partv  solemnly 
pledges  itself  to  treat  silver  as  it  treats  gold  and  to  treat  gold  as  it 
treats  silver.  Can  any  one  deny  that? 

The  advocates  of  unconditional  repeal  declare  in  favor  of  discrim 
ination,  while  the  platform  pronounces  against  discrimination.  How  is 
this  to  be  reconciled  ?  Let  us  look  at  it  candidly  without  resorting  to 
technical  construction.  We  officially  state  that  we  are  opposed  to  dis- 


42  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

crimination,  and  yet  every  Senator  who  has  argued  in  favor  of  uncon 
ditional  repeal,  with  the  exception  of  the  able  chairman  of  the  Com 
mittee  on  Finance,  and  I  think  one  or  two  other  Senators  has  urged 
us  to  discriminate  against  silver. 

I  am  not  arguing  now  whether  it  is  right  or  not  right  to  stand  upon 
the  Democratic  platform.  I  am  assuming  for  the  immediate  occasion 
that  every  Senator  admits  that  we  should  stand  upon  it,  that  it  is  our 
law;  that  as  we  went  before  the  people  upon  it  it  is  our  duty  to 
stand  here  upon  it;  and  hence  I  ask  how  can  any  Senator  argue  that 
he  is  adhering  to  that  platform  when  he  advocates  a  policy  of  discrim 
ination  against  silver,  when  the  platform  is  mandatory  that  he  shall  not 
discriminate. 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  argument  that  free  coinage  is 
not  demanded  by  our  platform,  no  one  who  claims  to  be  governed 
by  any  of  those  rules  of  construction  which  are  suggested  without 
effort  to  persons  of  common  sense  will  pretend  to  maintain  that  the 
man  who  repudiates  silver  as  a  standard,  and  who  does  not  favor  its 
coinage,  and  who  believes  in  discriminating  against  silver  and  in  favor 
of  gold,  gives  the  slightest  adhesion  to  those  principles  of  political 
faith  announced  in  the  law  which  his  party  has  made  and  to  which  he 
has  subscribed. 

If  the  advocates  of  unconditional  repeal  presented  a  mteasure 
calling  for  free  coinage  at  an  increased  ratio,  or  calling  for  limited  coin 
age  at  some  ratio,  or  if  they  offered  any  legal  substitute  recognizing 
silver  (not  a  mere  empty  declaration  without  force  or  virtue),  they 
might  be  able  to  defend  their  position  with  considerable  plausibility. 
But  we  have  all  listened  to  arguments  declaring  that  it  is  absurd  to 
claim  that  there  can  be  a  double  standard ;  that  such  a  thing  is 
impossible;  that  one  standard  only  is  practicable  or  logical. 

Without  examining  the  merits  of  this  affair  at  all  at  present,  I 
merely  refer  not  only  to  the  Democratic  platform,  but  likewise  to  the 
Republican  declaration  which  is  equally  specific  and  in  terms  favors 
bimetallism  and  the  double  standard. 

Gentlemen  may  talk  as  much  as  they  please.  They  may  argue 
that  the  conventions  were  wrong.  They  may  proclaim  that  they  know 
more  than  their  respective  parties,  but  this  does  not  relieve  them  from 
the  charge  of  inconsistency,  nor  will  it  relieve  any  one  who  has  gone 
before  the  people  upon  either  platform  from  constant  criticism.  True 
there  may  have  been  conversions.  We  know  that  there  have  been 
many  changes,  but  the  people  of  the  country  do  not  —  and  they  are 
right  about  it  —  look  with  much  regard  upon  a  victory  won  by  the 
sudden  conversion  of  so  many  men  of  heretofore  obstinate  and  posi 
tive  temperament.  Such  changes,  if  really  accomplished  bona  fide, 
imply  supernatural  interposition,  and  whatever  connection  our  Wall 
street  friends  may  have  with  the  other  world,  I  have  never  heard  it 
intimated  that  they  possess  the  power  to  utilize  superhuman  agencies. 
I  heard  a  distinguished  Senator  [Mr.  HAWLEY]  remark  a  few 
days  ago  that  he  did  not  think  that  either  party  knew  just  what  was 
meant  by  the  platforms  in  question.  While  there  may  be  equivocal 
expressions,  nevertheless  there  is  no  uncertainty  as  to  bimetallism,  or 
as  to  the  double  standard,  or  as  to  the  use  of  gold  and  silver  upon 
equal  terms.  I  take  these  words  from  the  platform.  Hence  the  enact- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  43 

ment  of  a  bill  which  merely  repeals  the  Sherman  act,  but  which  makes 
no  provision  for  silver,  not  only  fails  to  comply  with  the  Chicago  plat 
form,  but  is  a  direct  violation  of  it.  As  to  the  Republican  platform, 
there  is  nothing  said  regarding  the  repeal  of  the  Sherman  act. 
Bimetallism,  the  double  standard,  and  the  maintenance  of  parity  are 
its  leading  financial  features. 

I  do  not  presume  to  instruct  our  Republican  friends  as  to  the 
meaning  of  their  platform.  It  is  patent  enough  to  an  outsider  that  the 
attitude  of  those  members  of  that  organization  who  attack  the  friends 
of  silver  in  this  body  is  not  in  harmony  with  their  last  statement  of 
their  principles.  There  may,  however,  be  something  in  the  organiza 
tion  of  the  other  side  or  in  their  conception  of  their  duty  which  within 
their  own  limits  may  justify  their  conduct.  It  can  not  be  requisite  to 
say  a  great  deal  with  reference  to  those  who  claim  that  the  platforms 
are  not  binding.  A  man  who  will  meet  the  people  announcing  that  he 
is  a  candidate  upon  a  certain  platform  and  who  thereupon  pledges  him 
self  and  solemnly  agrees  that  he  will  abide  by  the  propositions  upon 
which  he  has  made  his  candidacy,  if  he  is  successful  and  he  does  not 
carry  out  his  promises  is  in  an  unenviable  position. 

I  know  every  one  in  this  Chamber  will  concur  in  this  view. 

I  am  aware  that  it  has  been  argued  that  times  have  changed  since 
the  political  convention.  Times  change,  and  we  change  with  them. 
This  is  very  convenient  doctrine,  and  if  generally  adopted  would 
enable  anyone  to  disregard  any  platform  whenever  he  might  so  elect. 
If  the  platform  can  be  repudiated  six  months  after  an  election,  why  not 
repudiate  it  six  days  afterward?  Why  have  a  platform  at  all?  The 
true  view  of  the  situation  undoubtedly  is  that  a  platform  is  the  law 
until  it  has  been  repealed  by  the  body  which  enacted  it.  It  is  a  law<,  not 
enforceable  by  judicial  decree  or  the  infliction  of  a  penalty,  but  it  is 
binding  upon  the  conscience  of  the  candidate  who  assumed  to  act  under 
it,  and  when  his  moral  condition  is  such  that  he  can  not  carry  it  out 
because  he  believes  it  to  be  based  upon  error  thereupon  it  becomes  his 
duty  to  resign.  No  other  course  is  open  to  him.  In  no  other  way  can 
he  justify  himself.  Elected  to  maintain  a  platform,  he  proceeds  when 
in  office  to  destroy  it,  to  violate  its  precepts,  and  to  jeer  at  its  declara 
tions.  But  whatever  may  be  our  monetary  embarrassment,  our  morals 
are  in  a  worse  plight  if  we  are  to  accept  the  theories  of  the  repudiators 
and  evasionists. 

It  may  be  urged  that  this  great  question  should  be  debated  upon 
its  intrinsic  merits.  It  is  proper  to  do  this,  and  I  am  not  avoiding 
that  branch  of  the  matter.  But  the  Democrat  who  subscribed  to  the 
Chicago  platform  and  who  now  legislates  for  the  destruction  of  silver, 
who  says  that  he  is  opposed  to  a  double  standard,  who  votes  to  discrim 
inate  in  favor  of  gold,  must  seek  some  other  excuse  than  any  consola 
tion  which  may  be  afforded  him  by  a  discussion  of  "  intrinsic  merits." 
If  Democrats  believe  that  there  was  no  merit  in  their  platform  as  far 
as  silver  is  concerned,  it  is  their  duty,  it  seems  to  me,  to  resign  and 
run  upon  a  new  platform.  If  re-elected  by  a  confiding  constituency  it 
will  be  legitimate  for  them  to  support  anti-silver  legislation,  and  by 
resigning  whenever  they  determine  to  abandon  their  party  principles, 
they  will  pursue  a  course  highly  conscientious,  even  though  sadly 
inconsistent. 

I  do  not  think  that  there  ever  has  been  a  time  in  the  history  of  this 


44  SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

country  when  such  an  effort  was  being  made  by  the  advocates  of  the 
single  standard  to  force  members  of  Congress  to  fall  into  line.  There 
are  rumors  of  influences  emanating  from  official  quarters  which  I  can 
not  consider  well  founded.  Any  attempt  to  coerce  this  body,  or  to  force 
any  Senator  to  act  differently  than  his  conscience  and  judgment  direct, 
would  be  usurpation,  and  accusations  that  such  an  effort  is  being  made 
should  not  be  uttered  unless  there  is  absolute  proof.  The  Democratic 
platform  plainly  calls  for  the  repeal  of  the  Federal  election  laws,  the 
language  used  being  as  follows : 

We  warn  people  of  our  common  country,  jealous  of  the  preservation  of 
their  free  institutions,  that  the  policy  of  Federal  control  of  elections,  to  which 
the  Republican  party  has  committed  itself,  is  fraught  with  the  gravest  dangers, 
scarcely  less  momentous  than  would  result  from  a  revolution,  practically  estab 
lishing  monarchy  upon  the  ruins  of  the  Republic. 

It  is  common  talk  that  a  certain  policy  is  contemplated  with  ref 
erence  to  that  enactment,  and  to  the  tariff,  and  that  both  are  to  be  sacri 
ficed  to  the  desire  to  enact  a  pet  measure.  But  I  shall  not  believe  that 
this  charge  is  true.  Circumstantial  evidence  apparently  sustaining  it 
may  indeed  be  cited,  but  I  do  not  deem  it  sufficient  to  warrant  such  a 
statement,  and  I  will  not  credit  any  rumor  that  the  organization  to 
which  I  belong  designs  to  repudiate  its  pledges.  I  do  not  entertain  the 
thought  that  there  is  any  intention  on  the  part  of  Senators  to  do  aught 
else  than  to  enforce  the  three  propositions  to  which  we  gave  our  ad 
hesion,  that  we  would  legislate,  without  discriminating  against  either 
gold  or  silver ;  that  we  would  reform  the  tariff ;  that  we  would  repeal 
the  Federal  election  laws,  which  our  convention  denounced  and  which 
the  people  denounced  when  voting  for  the  Democratic  candidates. 

It  is  rumored  that  those  having  in  charge  the  pending  measure 
have  given  the  word  that  it  will  be  unwise  to  enforce  the  Democratic 
platform  as  far  as  the  same  calls  for  the  abrogation  of  the  infamous 
election  laws  now  existing,  because  it  is  said  some  Republican  Senator 
who  desires  those  enactments  maintained  may,  if  the  Democratic 
friends  of  unconditional  repeal  seek  to  carry  out  the  platform,  abandon 
the  cause  of  monometallism  and  vote  with  the  friends  of  silver. 
Certain  transactions  which  have  been  witnessed  in  this  Capitol  within 
a  few  days  may  lend  countenance  to  this  theory,  but  fail,  in  my  judg 
ment,  to  establish  it. 

We  have  heard  a  good  deal  about  honest  dollars  and  the  dishonest 
silver  dollar.  But  if  our  promises  made  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States  are  to  be  abandoned,  it  will  indeed  be  strange  if  an  honest  dollar, 
or  anything  that  is  honest,  comes  from  our  deliberations.  I  do  not  be 
lieve  that  any  gentleman  upon  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber  or  any 
Republican  member  of  Congress,  would  sacrifice  his  convictions  to 
such  an  extent  that  he  would  decline  to  vote  upon  all  questions  in  ac 
cordance  with  his  conscience,  unless  he  would  effect  a  trade  with  the 
friends  of  election-law  repeal.  Still  we  are  living  in  a  peculiar  age. 
Some  seem  to  be  going  upon  the  idea  that  we  can  not  be  bound  by 
conventions.  All  along  the  political  highway  and  at  every  corner  we 
encounter  numberless  instances  of  suddenly  changed  views. 

When  Congress  assembled  the  position  of  many  of  its  members 
was  assumed  to  be  definitely  fixed  by  antecedent  utterances.  The  as 
sumption,  however,  proved  wholly  groundless,  and  as  soon  as  the 
President's  message  was  read,  demanding  as  the  whole  business  of  this 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.   WHITE.  45 

extra  session  the  immediate  repeal  of  the  silver-purchasing-  clause, 
there  was  forthwith  a  change  of  base  as  sudden  as  it  was  radical.  The 
dismemberment  of  the  silver  forces  under  the  persuasions  of  this  hour 
reminds  me  of  a  combat  said  to  have  taken  place  during  the  siege  of 
Troy,  and  the  result  is  summarized  by  the  poet  as  follows : 

Full  twelve,  they  boldest,  in  a  moment  fell, 
Sent  by  great  Ajax  to  the  shades  of  hell. 

I  do  not  desire  to  disagreeably  locate  anyone,  and  the  excerpt 
from  Homer  just  cited  does  not,  as  used  bv  me,  pretend  to  fix  the  des 
tination  of  those  who  have  so  quickly  altered  their  opinions,  but  is 
designed  to  sienalize  the  effectiveness  of  recent  arguments. 

The  able  junior  Senator  from  Kentucky  FMr.  LINDSAY!,  to  whose 
character  and  abilitv  T  am  glad  to  testifv,  unsuccessfully,  it  seems  to 
me,  charges  inconsistencv  upon  those  Democrats  who  have  spoken 
against  unconditional  repeal.  He  points  out  that  manv  of  them 
opposed  the  Sherman  law,  and  is,  therefore,  surprised  that  they  now 
object  to  eliminating  it  from  the  statute  book. 

It  is  unnecessary,  after  the  magnificent  presentation  made  bv  the 
Senator  from  Virginia  fMr.  DANIEL!,  to  answer  this  argument  in 
detail.  But  does  not  rnv  friend  appreciate  that  the  existing  legislative 
conditions  are  greatlv  different  from  those  which  prevailed  when  the 
Sherman  bill  p-ot  into  the  statute  books?  Ts  he  not  aware  that  the 
result  of  defeating  thai-  bill  at  that  time  meant  at  least  the 
retention  of  the  Bland- Allison  act?  Does  he  not  know  that  had  there 
been  no  legislation  in  1800.  the  Bland- Allison  law  would  have 
remained  in  operation,  and  that,  therefore,  those  Sectors  who  voted 
aeainst  the  Sherman  act  and  who  preferred  no  leeislation  at  all  to  the 
enactment  of  that  measure,  nlaced  themselves  in  a  position  which  sim- 
plv  amounted  to  this :  that  they  deemed  the  statute  then  in  force  better 
than  the  proposed  bill? 

Thev  were  rtp-ht  about  that.  The  Bland-Allison  law  was  better 
for  silver  than  the  Sherman  act.  But  when  the  Bland-Allison  law  was 
struck  dead  bv  the  same  r»ower  that  surnmotred  the  Sherman  measure 
into  life,  the  status  of  affairs  became  such  that  the  repeal  of  the  latter 
meant  that  the  Treasurv  had  no  use  for  more  silver.  The  Senators 
who  voted  against  the  Sherman  law  because  thev  wanted  more  favor 
able  terms  for  silver  are  not  inconsistent  when  they  refuse  to  repeal 
that  act  unless  come  concession'  is  made  to  silver. 

Mr.  COCTTRET  L.     Will  the  Senator  permit  just  one  suggestion? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  COCKREIX.  The  question  then  pending  was  with  reference 
to  a  bill  for  the  free  and  unlimited  coinage  of  silver. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  fully  appreciate  that,  but  I  will  say 
to  the  Senator  that  the  point  I  am  reaching  is  this:  True,  Senators 
desired  free  and  unlimited  coinage,  but  they  found,  because  of  the 
views  of  another  branch  of  this  Government,  that  they  could  not  get 
the  free  and  unlimited  coinage  of  silver.  So  the  issue  finallv  became, 
so  far  as  thev  were  concerned,  whether  thev  would  prefer  the  Sherman 
bill  to  the  Bland- Allison  act.  That  was  the  situation  as  I  understand  it. 

The  Senator  who  professed  in  the  discussion  of  1890  to  be 
opposed  to  the  Sherman  act  because  it  was  not  just  to  silver,  and  who 
preferred  to  depend  upon  the  Bland- Allison  law,  is  decidedly  incon- 


46 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.   WHITE. 


sistent  when  at  this  time  he  is  willing  to  indorse  a  proposition  which 
leaves  us  neither  the  Bland- Allison  nor  the  Sherman  act,  nor  a  substi 
tute  therefor.  Can  we  convince  the  people  that  we  are  friends  of  silver, 
and  at  the  same  time  sit  here  and  talk  and  talk  and  urge  nothing 
except  the  destruction  of  the  only  legislative  provision  which  provides 
for  the  disposition  of  any  new  silver?  If  the  Senators  who  advocate 
unconditional  repeal  mean  what  they  say,  and  we  cannot  doubt  their 
good  faith,  it  follows  that  they  hold  that  not  only  should  the  Sherman 
bill  have  been  defeated  in  1890,  but  the  Bland- Allison  act  should  have 
been  repealed  without  a  substitute.  Such  is  their  position,  and  the 
country  knows  it. 

ARE  THE  CIRCUMSTANCES  SUCH  AS  TO  JUSTIFY  THE  APPREHENSION  THAT 
THERE  IS  A  SURPLUS  OF  SILVER? 

In  the  course  of  my  address  upon  this  and  other  topics  I  will  refer 
to  several  tables,  some  of  which,  and  perhaps  all,  are  familiar  to  the 
Senate.  However,  I  deem  this  matter  necessary  to  the  intelligent  dis 
cussion  of  this  important  subject. 

The  majority  of  those  who  have  advocated  unconditional  repeal 
notify  us  that  there  is  such  an  enormous  supply  of  silver  that  the  neces 
sary  result  must  be  depreciation.  The  able  Senator  from  Iowa  [Mr. 
ALLISON],  who  was  also  a  delegate  to  the  Brussels  conference,  does 
not  share  this  view.  Although  his  sentiments,  as  I  construe  them,  are 
anti-silver,  he  declares  that  he  does  not  believe  that  the  question  of 
overproduction  of  either  silver  or  gold  affects  the  issue.  This  is  a 
candid  statement,  but  while  it  destroys  the  arguments  of  many  of  his 
colleagues,  it  is  a  tribute  to  his  integrity  and  discrimination.  Within 
the  last  few  days  the  able  Acting  Superintendent  of  the  Mint  has  fur 
nished  the  statement  to  the  Senate  showing  the  amount  of  silver  and 
gold  heretofore  produced  by  the  States  of  California,  Nevada,  Idaho, 
Montana,  and  Colorado,  and  the  Territories  of  New  Mexico,  Arizona, 
and  Utah.  It  is  as  follows : 

Production  of  gold  and  silver  of  Arizona,  California,  Colorado,  Idaho,  Montana, 
Nevada,   Utah  and  New  Mexico. 

NOTE. — Previous  to  1848  the  gold  product  of  the  United  States  was  esti 
mated  to  have  been  $14,440,000,  not  distributed  by  States  and  Territories.  (Ures 
Dictionary  of  Arts,  Mines,  etc.,  Volume  II,  page  647.)  (Raymond,  1874,  page 
544.) 


California. 

Nevada. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

From  1848  to  1873,  in 
clusive  

a$98S,800,OOf 
£20,300  ,OOC 
£17,753,000 
15,799,000 
15,000,000 
15,261,000 
17,600,000 

a$63,146,00f 
<*/35,452,00( 
/10,000,00f 
215,000 
18,000,000 
19,547,000 
9,000,000 

£$86,462,000 

1874  

1875*  

21,795,000 
44,991,000 
26,000,000 
28,130,000 
12,560,000 

1876^  

$1,505,000 
1,000,000 
2,373,000 
2,400,000 

1877*  

1778*  

1879*  

Total        

1,087,513,000 

7,278,000 

155,360,000 

219,938,000 

SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.   WHITE. 


47 


Production  of  gold  and  silver  of  Arizona,  California,    Colorado,  Idaho,  Montana, 
Nevada,  Utah  and  New  Mexico.  —  Continued. 


1880  

$17,500,000 

$1,100,000 

$4,800,000 

$10,900,000 

1881  

18,200,000 

750,000 

2,250,000 

7,060,000 

1882  

16,800,000 

845,000 

2,000,000 

6,750,000 

1883  

14,  120,000 

1,460,000 

2,520,000 

5,430,000 

1884...  . 

13  000,000 

3  000,000 

3,500,000 

5,600,000 

1885  

12,700,000 

2,500,000 

3,100,000 

6,000,000 

1886  

14,725,000 

1,400,000 

3,090,000 

5,000,000 

1887  

13,400,000 

1,500,000 

2,500,000 

4,900,000 

1888  

12,750,000 

1,400,000 

3,525,000 

7,000,000 

1889  

13,000,000 

1,034,000 

3,000,000 

6,206,000 

1890  

12,500,000 

1,164,000 

2,800,000 

5,754,000 

1891.. 

12  600  000 

970,000 

2,050,000 

4,551,000 

1892  

12  000  000 

465,000 

1,571,000 

2,901,000 

Total  

183,895  000 

17,588,000 

36,706,000 

78,052,000 

1,087,513,000 

7,278,000 

155,360,000 

219,938,000 

Grand  total  

1,271,408,000 

24,866,000 

192,066,000 

297,990,000 

a  From  1848  to  1873,  inclusive,  the  gold  product  of  California  was  esti 
mated  to  have  been  $985,800,000  and  the  product  of  other  States  and  Territories 
$254,950,000,  and  of  this  amount  $63,146,000  was  from  the  Comstock  Lode, 
Nevada,  b  The  silver  product  from  1848  to  1873,  inclusive,  was  estimated  to 
have  been  $186,050,000,  not  distributed  by  States  and  Territories,  and  of  this 
amount  $86,462,000  was  from  the  Comstock  Lode,  Nevada,  c  Gold  and  silver. 
(Raymond.)  d  Of  this  amount  $8,990,900  gold  and  $13,486  silver  was  from  the 
Comstock  Lode,  Nevada,  e  Fiscal  year,  f  Estimate  of  Dr.  H.  R.  Linderman. 

Production  of  gold  and  silver  of  Arizona,  California,  Colorado,  Idaho,  Montana, 
Nevada,  Utah  and  New  Mexico.  —  Continued. 


Colorado. 

Montana. 

'Idaho.. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

1874  
187Sf 

$5,189,000 
2,800,000 
3,150,000 
3,000,000 
3,366,000 
3,225,000 

$2)672,006' 
3,130,000 
4,500,000 
5,395,000 
11,700,000 

t$4,355,000 
3,438,000 
3,078,000 
3,200,000 
2,261,000 
2,500,000 

t$161,000 
682,000 
1,133,000 
750,000 
1,670,000 
2,225,000 

*1,880,000 
2,000,000 
1,053,000 
1,500,000 
1,150,000 
1,200,000 

$500,000 
307,000 
250,000 
200,000 
650,000 

1876f. 

1877f. 

1878t  
1879f 

Total  
1880 

20,730,000 

27,397,000 

18,832,000 

6,621,000 

8,783,000 

1,907,000 

3,200,000 
3,300,000 
3,360,000 
4,100,000 
4,250,000 
4,200,000 
4,450,000 
4,000,000 
3,758,000 
3,500,000 
4,150,000 
4,600,000 
5,300,000 

17,000,000 
17,160,000 
16,500,000 
17,370,000 
16,000,000 
15,800,000 
16,000,000 
15,000,000 
19,000,000 
20,687,000 
24,307,000 
27,358,000 
31,030,000 

2,400,000 
2,330,000 
2,550,000 
1,800,000 
~  2,170,000 
3,300,000 
4,425,000 
5,230,000 
4,200,000 
3,500,000 
3,300,000 
2,390,000 
2,891,000 

2,500,000 
2,630,000 
4,370,000 
6,000,000 
7,000,000 
10,060,000 
12,400,000 
15,500,000 
17,000,000 
19,394,000 
20,364,000 
21,139,000 
22,432,000 

1,980,000 
1,700,000 
1,505,000 
1,400,000 
1,250,000 
1,800,000 
1,800,000 
1,900,000 
2,400,000 
2,000,000 
1,850,000 
1,680,000 
1,721,000 

450,000 
1,300,000 
2,000,000 
2,100,000 
2,720,000 
3,500,000 
3,600,000 
3,000,000 
3,000,000 
4,396,000 
4,784,000 
5,217,000 
4,091,000 

1881 

1882.. 

1883... 

1884  

1885  
1886  
1887. 

1888 

1889  .. 

1890  

1891  

1892  

Total  

Grand 
Total... 

52,168,000 
20,730,000 

53,212,000 
27,397,000 

40,986,000 
18,832,000 

160,789,000 
6,621,000 

22,981,000 
8,783,000 

40,158,000 
1,907,000 

72,898,000 

230,609,000 

59,818,000 

167,410.000 

31,764,000 

42,065,000 

*Gold  and  silver.     (Raymond.)     fFiscal  year. 


OF  THE 


48  SPEECHES   OP  STEPHEN   M.    WHITE. 

Production  of  gold  and  silver  of  Arizona,  California,  etc.  —  Continued. 


Utah. 

New  Mexico. 

Arizona. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

1874  
1875f  

*$3,912,000 
44,000 
65,000 
350,000 
392,000 
575,000 

"$6,80l',o6b 

5,829,000 
5,075,000 
5,208,000 
6,250,000 

*500,000 
1,000,000 
/:39,000 
175,000 
175,000 
125,000 

*$487,000 
700,000 
1,000,000 
300,000 
500,000 
800,000 

$300,000 
500,000 
500,000 
3,000,000 
3,550,000 

1876f.  . 

*$2,027,COO 
500,000 
500,000 
600,000 

1877f 

1878f.... 

1879f  

Total... 
1880 

5,338,000 

29,163,000 

2,014,000 

3,627,000 

3,787,000 

7,850,000 

210,000 
145,000 
190,000 
140,000 
120,000 
180,000 
216,000 
220,000 
290,000 
500,000 
680,000 
650,000 
660,000 

4,740,000 
6,400,000 
6,800,000 
5,620,000 
6,800,000 
6,750,000 
6,500,000 
7,000,000 
7,000,000 
9,051,000 
10,343,000 
12,313,000 
10,473,000 

130,000 
185,000 
150,000 
280,OCO 
300,000 
800,000 
400,000 
500,000 
602,000 
1,000,000 
850,000 
905,000 
950,000 

425,000 
275,000 
1,800,000 
2,845,000 
3,000,000 
3,000,000 
2,300,000 
2,300,000 
1,200,000 
1,461,000 
1,681,000 
1,713,000 
1,390,000 

400,000 
1,060,000 
1,065,000 
950,000 
930,000 
880,000 
1,110,000 
830,000 
872,000 
900,000 
1,000,000 
975,000 
1,070,000 

2,000,000 
7,300,000 
7,500,000 
5,200,000 
4,500,000 
3,800,000 
3,400,000 
3,800,000 
3,000,000 
1,939,000 
1,293,000 
1,914,000 
1,373,000 

1881 

1882  ... 

1883... 

1884.. 

1885  
1886  
1887  

1888  

1889 

1890  
1891... 

1892. 

Total... 

Grand 
Total... 

4,201,000 
5,338,000 

98,790,000 
29,163,000 

7,052,000 
2,014,000 

23,390,000 
3,627,000 

12,042,000 
3,787,000 

47,019,000 
7,850,000 

9,539,000 

127,953,000 

9,066,000 

27,017,000 

15,829,000 

54,869,000 

*Gold  and  silver.    (Raymond.)    fFiscal  year.    JWells,  Fargo  &  Co.  statement. 

Total  gold     $1,662,388,000 

Total  silver    1,022,779,000 

R.   E.   PRESTON, 

Acting  Director  of  the  Mint. 
BUREAU  OF  THE  MINT, 

September  6,  1893. 

Mr.  TELLER.  If  the  Senator  will  allow  me,  I  will  say  that 
according  to  that  table,  Colorado  is  not  credited  with  at  least 
$75,000,000  of  gold,  if  not  $100,000,000,  produced  before  1874. 

Mr.  DUBOIS.  And  if  the  Senator  will  allow  me,  I  think  it  will 
be  reasonably  safetto  say  that  Idaho  produced  $100,000,000  of  gold 
before  1874. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  Whatever  the  amount  may  be,  it 
simply  emphasizes  my  argument  as  showing  the  excess  of  gold  pro 
duction.  The  amount  of  unreported  gold  was  very  large,  I  have  no 
doubt. 

I  will  add  that  since  that  statement  was  handed  in  to  the  Senate  I 
have  obtained  from  the  Acting  Director  of  the  Mint  further  informa 
tion  with  reference  to  the  gold  and  silver  production  in  certain  other 
States  for  1892,  which  I  shall  also  append  to  and  make  a  part  of  my 
remarks.  This  table  contains  the  entire  gold  and  silver  output  of  the 
United  States  during  1892,  and  therefore  contains  some  information 
not  found  in  Senate  Mis.  Doc.  52 : 


SPEECHES   OF   STEPHEN   M.    WHITE. 


49 


Approximate  distribution  by  producing  States  and  Territories  of  the  product 
of  gold  and  silver  in  the  United  States  for  the  calendar  year  1892,  as  esti 
mated  by  the  Director  of  the  Mint. 


State  or  Territory. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

Total 
value. 

Fine 
ounces. 

Value. 

Fine 
ounces. 

Coining 
value. 

Alaska  

48,375 
51,761 
580,500 
256,387 
4,583 
83,271 
3,386 
139,871 
76,021 
45,956 
3,800 
67,725 
5,968 
178,987 

$1,000,000 
1,070,000 
12,000,000 
5,300,000 
94,734 
1,721,364 
70,000 
2,891,386 
1,571,500 
950,000 
78,560 
1,400,000 
123,365 
3,700,000 

8,000 
1,062,220 
360,000 
24,000,000 
400 
3,164,269 
60,000 
17,350,000 
2,244,000 
1,075,000 
9,000 
50,000 
400 
60,000 
310,000 
8,100,000 
150,000 

1,000 

|10,343 

1,373,375 
465,455 
31,030,303 
517 
4,091,176 
77,576 
22,432,323 
2,901,333 
1,389,899 
11,636 
64,646 
517 
77,576 
400,808 
10,472,727 
193,939 

1,293 

$1,010,343 
2,443,375 
12,465,455 
36,330,303 
95,251 
5,812,540 
147,576 
25,323,709 
4,472,833 
2,339,899 
90,196 
1,464,646 
123,882 
3,777,576 
400,808 
11,132,902 
567,500 

11,629 

Arizona  

California  

Colorado.. 

Georgia  

Idaho  

Michigan  .. 

Montana  

Nevada  

New  Mexico  

North  Carolina  

Oregon  

South  Carolina  

South  Dakota  

Texas  

Utah    . 

31,936 
18,071 

500 

660,175 
373,561 

10,336 

Washington  

Alabama 

Maryland.. 

Tennessee... 

Virginia  

Vermont   

Wyoming  

Total... 

1.597.098 

33.014.981 

58.004.289 

74.995.442 

108.010.423 

BUREAU  OF  MINT, 

September  20,  1893. 

It  will  be  observed  that  that  part  of  the  Union  embraced  within  the 
States  and  Territories  mentioned  in  the  first  of  these  exhibits  com 
prises  most  of  our  gold  and  silver  producing  mines,  and  yet  it  seems 
that  there  has  been  obtained  from  these  sources,  since  1848,  some  six 
hundred  and  forty  millions  of  gold  in  excess  of  silver,  allowing  nothing 
for  the  unreported  amounts  mentioned  by  the  Senators  from  Idaho 
and  Colorado.  California  has  furnished  $1,271,000,000  of  gold  and 
but  $24,866,000  of  silver.  If  any  process  shall  be  discovered  adequate 
to  enable  the  miners  of  California  to  explore  the  prehistoric  river  beds 
of  the  Sierras  .without  destroying  the  valleys  and  the  streams,  the  out 
put  will  be  strikingly  increased.  Careful  surveys  and  scientific  exam 
inations  of  the  gravel  deposits  covered  by  the  Sierras  justify  this  asser 
tion.  While  it  is  probable  that  for  several  years,  under  the  influence  of 
favorable  legislation,  the  production  of  silver  will  augment,  it  is  almost, 
certain  that  this  will  not  be  lasting. 

Few  people  understand  the  thoroughness  of  the  explorations  which 
have  taken  place  in  the  West.  The  miners  of  that  region  are  active  in 
the  extreme.  Their  practiced  eyes  detect  the  smallest  paying  cropping, 
and  there  is  hardly  a  yard  of  country,  scarcely  a  fastness  upon  which 
man  can  rest,  in  which  there  is  or  has  been  gold  or  silver-bearing  rock 
which  has  not  been  fully  prospected.  It  is  known  that  there  are 
immense  deposits  of  gold  untouched  in  California.  It  is  not  known  that 


50  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.   WHITE. 

there  are  any  silver  deposits  of  magnitude  beyond  those  which  have 
already  been  worked  and  are  now  in  operation. 

I  particularly  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  Senators  to  the  enor 
mous  amount  of  gold  produced  by  other  States  and  Territories  which 
are  regarded  as  silver-bearing  localities  and  which  are  sneeringly  re 
ferred  to  by  Wall-street  newspapers,  and  if  the  silver  mines  are  closed 
the  gold  output  will  likewise  cease.  Thus  Idaho  shows  the  following : 

Production  of  silver    $42,065,000 

Production  of  gold    31,764,000 


Excess  of  silver  over  gold $10,301,000 

Nevada  has  done  a  great  deal  for  gold.  She  produced  silver 
$297,990,000;  gold  $196,066,000. 

We  have  just  been  informed  by  the  Senator  from  Idaho  [Mr. 
DUBOIS]  and  the  Senator  from  Colorado  [Mr.  TELLER]  that  in  addi 
tion  to  the  gold  reported  by  the  Superintendent  of  the  Mint  as  the 
product  of  Idaho  and  Colorado,  that  prior  to  1874,  about  one  hundred 
millions  of  that  metal  had  been  extracted  from  each  of  those  States, 
then  Territories.  I  very  well  remember  that  both  were  deemed  gold- 
bearing  Territories  before  the  date  of  the  first  credit  appearing  in  the 
Treasury  report.  I  know  that  California  miners  went  to  those  sections 
anterior  to  that  date  and  reported  large  development,  but  I  have  no 
figures  at  hand  to  justify  any  personal  estimate. 

The  greatest  difference  in  gold  and  silver  production  appears  in 
Utah,  from  which  Territory  it  seems  over  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
seven  millions  of  silver  were  obtained  and  less  than  ten  millions  of 
gold.  If  silver  mining  ceases  there  will  be  scarcely  any  gold  production 
from  other  States  or  Territories  where  the  silver  output  has  been  so 
large.  It  has  been  said  that  nature  has  married  these  metals.  They 
are  certainly  found  in  close  relationship  the  world  over,  and  they  were 
placed  in  combination  by  the  Almighty  as  if  in  defiance  of  the  attempt 
of  man  to  divorce  them. 

The  statistics  compiled  by  Mr.  Soetbeer  with  reference  to  the 
production  of  gold  and  silver  from  the  discovery  of  America  to  the 
present  time  show  that  there  has  been  no  dangerous  alteration  of  the 
relations  of  the  two  metals,  even  during  the  last  thirty  years.  The 
following  is  an  estimate  in  tons : 


Period. 

Tons. 

Gold. 

Silyer. 

1493  to  1800  

3,566 
3,203 
4,667 

117,104 
41,681 
56,448 

1801  to  1860  

1861  to  1888  

From  1 86 1  to  1888  it  is  obvious  that  the  production  of  gold  was 
relatively  greater  than  that  of  silver,  the  increase  being  45  per  cent.; 
that  of  silver  10  per  cent.  less.  From  1850  to  1890  the  world's  stock 
of  gold  increased  143  per  cent.,  and  the  world's  stock  of  silver  during 
the  same  period  increased  but  45  per  cent.  Hence  there  is  absolutely 
nothing  in  the  assertion  that  over-production  has  interfered  with  a  ratio 
which  was  successfully  maintained  for  two  centuries. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.   WHITE. 


51 


Mulhall's  table  shows  that  the  world's  stock  of  gold  and  silver  in 
the  years  1600,  1700,  1800,  1850,  and  1890,  were  as  follows: 
Stock   of  precious  metals  at  various  periods. 


Year. 

Tons. 

Percentage  of 
increase. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

Gold. 

Silver. 

1600 

830 
1,310 
2,730 
3,620 
8,820 

23,000 
45,000 
88,000 
113,000 
165,000 

1700 

57 
108 
32 
143 

95 
95 
28 
45 

1800  

1850  

1890  

This  table  justifies  the  statement  already  made  with  reference  to 
the  present  increase  in  the  supply  of  each  metal. 

If  there  was  anything  in  the  theory  of  overproduction,  it  is  certain 
that  the  gigantic  addition  made  to  the  gold  supply  during  past  periods 
would  have  unsettled  the  ratio ;  but  it  did  not  do  so,  although  certain 
nations,  from  mere  fright — what  would  now  be  called  lack  of  confi 
dence — demonetized  gold. 

The  conduct  of  the  Austrians  and  others  with  relation  to  the 
increased  supply  of  that  metal  may  seem  peculiar,  but  was  no  more  irra 
tional  than  the  statement  of  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Vermont 
[Mr.  MORRILL].  who  seemed  to  be  alarmed  at  the  enormous  quantity 
of  silver  thrown  upon  civilization. 

There  will  be  no  trouble  in  the  solution  of  the  silver  question  as 
soon  as  we  are  all  thoroughly  educated.  When  the  facts  are  fully 
known  the  people  reflect  upon  them,  and  the  monometallist  advocate 
will  be  out  of  a  job. 

In  this  connection  I  ask  leave  to  submit  the  statement  furnished 
by  the  Bureau  of  the  Mint  on  August  16,  1893 : 

Production  of  gold  and  silver  in  the  world,  1792  to  1892. 


Calendar  Years. 

Gold. 

Silver  (coin 
ing  value). 

Total. 

1792  to 
1801  to 
1811  to 
1821  to 
1831  to 
1841  to 
1849 

1890  

$106,407,000 
118,152,000 
76,063,000 
94,479,000 
134,841,000 
291,144,000 
27,100,000 
44,450.000 
67,600,000 
132,750,000 
155,450,000 
127,450,000 
135,075,000 
147,600,000 
133,275,000 
124,650,000 
128,850,000 
119.250,000 
113,800,000 
107,750,000 
106,690,000 

$328,860.000 
371,677,000 
224,786,000 
191,444,000 
274,930,000 
259,520,000 
39,000,000 
39,000,000 
40,000,000 
40,600,000 
40,600,000 
40,600,000 
40,600,000 
40,650,000 
40.650,000 
40,650,000 
40,750,000 
40,800,000 
44,700,000 
45,200,000 
49,200,000 

$435,267,000 
489,829,000 
300,849.000 
285,923.000 
409,771,000 
550,664,000 
66,100,000 
83,450,000 
107,600,000 
173,350,000 
196,050,000 
168,050,000 
175,675,000 
188,250,000 
173,925,000 
165,300,000 
165,600,000 
160,050,000 
158,500,000 
152,950,000 
156,150,000 

1810  

1820  

1830  

1840  

1848  

1850 

1851  .. 

1852  .. 

1853 

1854 

1855 

1856 

1857 

1858 

1859 

I860..  . 

1861 

1862 

1863 

Total... 

2,492,726,000 

2,274,217,000 

4,793,304,000 

52 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.   WHITE. 


Production  of  gold  and  silver  in  the  world,  1792  to  1892.  —  Continued. 


Forward 

2  492  726  000 

2  274  217  000 

4  793  304  000 

1864 

113  000  000 

51  700  000 

164  700  000 

1865.... 

120  200  000 

51  950  000 

172,150  000 

1866   .... 

121  100  000 

50  750  000 

171,850  000 

1867.   .  . 

104  025  000 

54,225,000 

158  250  000 

1868  

109  725  000 

50  225  000 

159  950  000 

1869  

106  225  000 

47  500  000 

153  725,000 

1870  

106  850  000 

51  575  000 

158,425,000 

1871  „  

107,000  000 

61,050  000 

168,050,000 

1872  

99,600  000 

65,250,000 

164,850,000 

1873  

96,200  000 

81,800  000 

178,000,000 

1874  

90  750  000 

71,500  000 

162,250,000 

1875  

97,500,000 

80,500,000 

178,000,000 

1876  

103,700  000 

87,600,000 

191,300,000 

1877  

114,000  000 

81,000,000 

195,000,000 

1878  

119,000  000 

95,000,000 

214,000,000 

1879  

109,000,000 

96,000,000 

205,000,000 

1880  

106,500  000 

96,700,000 

203,200,000 

1881  

103,000,000 

102,000,000 

205,000,000 

1882  

102,000,000 

111,800,000 

213,800,000 

1883  

95,400,000 

115,300,000 

210,700,000 

1884  

101,700000 

105,500,000 

207,200,000 

1885  

108,400,000 

118,500,000 

226,900,000 

1886  

106  000  000 

120  600  000 

226  600,000 

1887  

105  775  000 

124  281  000 

230,056  000 

1888  

110  197  000 

140  706  000 

250  903  000 

1889  

123  489  000 

162  159  000 

285,648  000 

1890  

113  150  000 

172  235  000 

285,385,000 

1891  

120  519  000 

186  733  000 

307  252  000 

1892  

130  817  000 

196  605,000 

327  422  000 

Total  

5,633,908,000 

5,104,961,000 

0,738,769,000 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT, 

Bureau  of  the  Mint,  August  16,  1893. 

In  this  table  the  output  for  various  years  is  set  forth,  and  proves 
the  production  of  gold  to  have  been  $528,947,000  in  excess  of  silver.  It 
is  true  that  silver  has  been  advancing  of  late,  but  there  is  no 
more  assurance  that  this  gain  will  be  lasting  than  there  was  that  the 
gain  of  gold  between  1850  and  1860  would  be  continuous.  From  1850 
to  1861,  both  inclusive,  the  annual  product  of  gold  always  exceeded 
that  of  silver,  and  the  difference  since  silver  has  taken  the  lead  has  not 
been  nearly  as  pronounced  as  the  discrepancy  which  was  disclosed  dur 
ing  a  large  portion  of  the  time  during  which  gold  disclosed  a  surplus. 
The  greatest  difference  shown  in  favor  of  silver  was  manifested  in 
1891,  during  which  year  there  was  produced  $66,214,000  more  of  silver 
than  of  gold. 

Production  from  1792  to  1848,  inclusive: 

Silver    $1,651,217,000 

Gold 821 ,086,000 


Excess  of  silver $1,830,131,000 

Production  from  1849  to  1892,  inclusive: 

Gold    $4,812,722,000 

Silver 3,453,744,000 


Excess  of  gold $1,358,978,000 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  53 

From  1851  to  1860,  both  years  inclusive,  the  product  was  as  fol 
lows  : 

Gold  $1,267,950,000 

Silver    405,900,000 

Excess  of  gold $   862,050,000 

From  1883  to  1892,  both  years  inclusive,  the  result  appears  to  be 
as  follows: 

Silver    $1,442,619,000 

Gold   1,115,437,000 

Excess  of  silver $    327,182,000 

It  is  clear  that  the  Senator  from  Iowa  [Mr.  ALLISON]  is  correct 
when  he  says  that  the  overproduction  of  silver  is  not  the  cause  of  the 
difficulty  which  we  are  experiencing.  His  statement  is  of  great 
importance,  because  it  is  the  result  of  much  thought  and  of  the  investi 
gations  made  by  a  gentleman  of  attainments  who  is  favorable  to  the 
pending  bill  and  who  wient  abroad  to  meet  and  deliberate  with  the  most 
distinguished  financiers  of  the  world,  and  who  attended  the  Brussels 
conference  practically  without  instructions,  and  was  compelled  to 
devote  himself  assiduously  to  the  difficult  problems  which  he  felt  bound 
to  solve  if  it  were  possible  to  do  so. 

Right  here  let  me  make  a  remark  suggested  yesterday  by  the  argu 
ment  of  the  Senator  from  Delaware  [Mr.  GRAY].  He  spoke  of  the 
so-called  panic  and  mentioned  that  bank  depositors  had  withdrawn 
their  money.  This  no  one  denies.  He  further  informed  us  that  these 
parties  were  frightened.  This  is  conceded.  A  Senator  upon  the  other 
side  of  the  Chamber  asked  what  these  depositors  feared,  and  there 
seemed  to  be  a  little  hesitancy,  but  it  was  finally  said  that  they  were 
afraid  they  would  be  paid  in  a  depreciated  currency,  to  wit,  silver. 
Now,  although  we  are  formed  upon  the  same  general  plan,  it  is  true 
that  we  differ  greatly.  It  may  be,  and  as  the  Senator  said  so,  I  assume 
it  undoubtedly  to  be  the  fact,  that  the  people  upon  the  great  Atlantic 
seaboard  wiere  alarmed  lest  they  should  be  paid  in  silver.  It  may  be 
that  the  depositor  who  frantically  moved  upon  the  bank,  and  who  went 
there  with  trembling  hand  so  that  his  signature  was  scarcely  legible, 
was  afraid  that  he  would  be  paid  in  silver. 

But  that  was  not  my  experience  during  the  panic  upon  the  other 
side  of  this  continent,  and  I  saw  much  of  it.  I  wtas  interested  person 
ally  to  this  extent,  that  I  lived  in  a  community  where  there  was  much 
temporary  and  foolish  excitement  which  I  was  anxious  to  mollify,  and 
I  had  some  connection  with  the  reopening  of  certain  institutions  which, 
though  perfectly  solvent,  closed  their  doors  for  a  few  days.  In  all  that 
experience,  and  in  all  the  conversations  which  I  have  heretofore  had 
wtith  gentlemen  from  other  parts  of  the  United  States,  I  have  never 
heard  of  a  depositor  who  was  afraid  that  he  would  be  paid  in  silver. 
They  were  afraid,  Mr.  President,  that  they  would  not  be  paid  at  all. 

It  was  not  the  presence  of  silver  that  scared  them.  I  believe  a 
compromise  could  have  been  effected  which,  however  startling  to 
gentlemen  upon  the  other  side  of  this  question,  would  have  been  satis 
factory  to  the  parties  who  charged  upon  those  banks.  People  were 


54  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

irrational.  It  is  aptly  said  that  it  makes  no  difference  what  the  cause 
of  excitement  may  be  the  material  proposition  is  the  presence  of  alarm. 
That  is  undoubtedly  true,  but  is  it  not  our  duty  to  attempt  to  reach  the 
real  cause  of  the  disturbance,  and  having  found  that  cause  is  it  not  our 
duty  to  explain  the  same  to  the  people  so  that  they,  knowing  the  evil, 
may  acquiesce  in  the  remedy? 

At  the  time  my  friend  from  Delaware  was  making  his  statement 
the  Senator  from  Louisiana  [Mr.  WHITE]  interrupted  him  and  said 
that  as  the  effect  of  the  enactment  of  the  Bland-Allison  act  and  the 
Sherman  law,  people  in  this  part  of  the  country  demanded  that  there 
should  be  a  gold  clause  inserted  in  their  contracts.  I  do  not  think  that 
any  of  these  propositions  are  in  the  slightest  degree  pertinent  to  this 
discussion;  but  let  me  say  to  the  Senator  from  Louisiana  that  in  the 
State  from  which  I  come  it  has  been  a  common  thing  for  years  to  insert 
a  gold  clause  in  contracts.  I  have  never  seen  a  contract  of  importance 
in  which  a  covenant  of  that  kind  was  not  inserted. 

The  custom  arose,  I  presume,  during  the  war.  I  have  never  drawn 
a  contract  or  an  obligation  of  magnitude  involving  money  payments  in 
which  the  word  "  gold  "  was  not  used ;  and  that  custom  surely  was 
not  attributable  to  the  Sherman  law,  because  however  many  bad  things 
that  law  has  done  and  committed,  however  many  crimes  are  to  be  laid 
at  its  door,  how'ever  many  tornadoes  it  has  produced,  and  however 
much  disaster  it  has  caused  upon  land  and  ocean,  shores  remote  and 
countries  near,  it  certainly  can  not  be  said  of  it  that  it  is  responsible 
for  those  things  that  were  done  long,  long  before  it  was  ever  heard  of. 

It  may  be  said  why  is  it  that  people  prefer  to  put  the  word  "  gold  " 
in  their  contracts.  Mr.  President,  the  people  outside  of  as  well  as 
within  this  Chamber  and  this  building  and  this  city,  throughout  the 
Republic  generally,  are  intelligent  and  observing.  They  have  wit 
nessed  this  Government  for  twenty  years  endeavoring  to  ruin  the 
cause  of  silver.  They  have  witnessed  this  Government  challenging 
the  purchasing  power  of  silver  in  every  part  of  the  world.  They 
have  witnessed  policy  after  policy  adopted  by  Administration  after 
Administration  antagonistic  to  silver.  Hence  they  name  gold  in 
their  contracts,  not  because  they  have  no  confidence  in  silver,  but 
because  they  have  no  confidence  in  the  sagacity  of  those  who 
represent  them  and  make  and  execute  the  law. 

Here  I  might  interject  a  thought  lest  I  should  forget  it.  We  hear 
much  regarding  honest  dollars.  Our  friends  are  afraid  of  a  dishonest 
dollar.  So  am  I.  They  say,  do  you  wish  to  give  the  poor  laboring  man 
a  dishonest  dollar?  They  say,  why  do  you  not  give  him  a  dollar  that 
is  really  worth  a  dollar?  Why  is  the  silver  dollar  worth  less  than  the 
so-called  honest  dollar?  Assume  for  the  sake  of  argument  only  that 
ine  silver  dollar  will  buy  less  than  the  gold  dollar,  if  the  reason  must 
be  given  it  is  found  in  the  fact  that  the  legislation  of  this  country  has 
been  directed  against  silver.  Until  we  demonetized  the  white  metal  the 
commercial  ratios  showed  no  discrepancy  save  in  favor  of  silver. 

We  have  willfully  discredited  silver,  and  having  so  discredited  it 
we  audaciously  speak  of  the  dishonest  dollar.  Give  the  silver  dollar  a 
chance,  and  if  it  does  not  take  care  of  itself,  then  call  it  a  dishonest 
dollar.  Do  what  your  platform  demands  shall  be  done,  treat  it  as  you 
treat  gold. 

Permit  me  to  inquire  whether  gold    advocates  have  not  become 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  55 

tired  of  constantly  declaring  that  they  desire  to  legislate  in  favor  of  the 
honest  dollar  that  the  workingmen  may  not  be  cheated?  The  average 
laboring  man  receives  but  a  small  sum  for  his  daily  toil,  and  he  can 
buy  as  much  with  that  sum  in  silver  as  he  can  buy  in  gold.  He  finds 
no  difficulty  in  disposing  of  one,  two,  or  three  dollars  a  day  in  silver, 
and  the  grocer,  the  butcher,  the  baker  give  him  as  large  quantities  of 
sugar,  meat,  and  bread  for  his  silver  as  they  wtould  give  him  if  he 
brought  gold  or  paper  currency.  In  fact,  they  prefer  $5  in  silver  to  the 
same  sum  in  gold,  since  the  gold  is  liable  to  depreciate  by  reason  of 
abrasion. 

The  laboring  man  gives  full  credit,  or  at  least  as  much  credit  as 
is  due,  to  these  professions  of  golden  sympathy ;  but  in  this  struggle 
he  is  manifestly  upon  the  side  of  silver. 

HAS  GOLD  APPRECIATED? 

I  now  approach  a  very  interesting  inquiry.  Has  gold  appreciated 
or  has  silver  depreciated?  I  listened  with  much  pleasure  to  the  argu 
ment  of  the  learned  Senator  from  Delaware  upon  this  subject  yester 
day,  but  I  can  not  adopt  his  view  of  the  situation.  As  a  logician  he 
concedes  that  if  it  be  true  that  gold  has  appreciated,  then  a  condition 
is  presented  calling  for  affirmative  action.  But  in  approaching  that 
argument  he  assumes  that  the  burden  of  proof  is  upon  those  who  advo 
cate  silver.  While  the  rules  of  law  prescribed  for  the  government  of 
courts  in  the  trial  of  causes  are  wise,  they  are  not  at  all  times  applicable 
to  proceedings  in  a  legislative  body.  I  do  not  think  it  is  accurate  to 
say  that  in  considering  a  question  like  this  there  is  any  occasion  for 
rules  regarding  the  burden  of  proof.  We  are  here  to  elicit  the  truth. 
In  this  case  there  can  be  no  such  a  thing  as  a  judgment  pro  confesso. 
There  can  be  no  default.  The  silence  of  the  friends  of  silver  would 
not  justify  an  enactment  against  silver  which  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the 
subject  would  not  warrant. 

Let  us  consider  this  issue  upon  its  merits.  It  must  not  be  for 
gotten  that  my  argument  is  intended  to  induce  two  conclusions :  First, 
that  because  of  our  platform  obligations  we  should  protect  silver; 
secondly,  that  the  welfare  of  the  people  so  demands. 

It  is  the  habit  of  the  monometallists  to  assert  that  silver  is  con 
stantly  falling,  and  they  deny  that  gold  is  appreciating.  There  are 
very  respectable  people  who  are  of  this  way  of  thinking.  A  large 
number  of  able  gentlemen,  during  the  present  session,  have  so  argued, 
and  Sir  John  Lubbock  strenuously  contends  to  the  same  purport  in 
the  current  number  of  the  North  American  Review. 

To  begin  with,  these  gentlemen  all  admit  that  a  certain  quantity 
of  gold  will  now  buy  about  50  per  cent,  more  of  the  necessaries  of  life 
than  could  have  been  purchased  with  the  same  amount  of  the  same 
metal  at  the  time  of  the  demonetization  of  silver  in  1873.  But  they 
contend  that  this  is  due  to  improved  machinery,  to  new  and  more  eco 
nomical  methods  of  production.  I  think  that  the  address  made  by  the 
able  Senator  from  Missouri  [Mr.  VEST]  at  the  opening  of  this  dis 
cussion,  disposed  of  this  subject,  and  I  will  not  spend  much  time 
discussing  it.  I  have  had  the  pleasure  of  listening  to  arguments 
wherein  it  was  stated  that  wages  had  not  fallen.  It  may  well  be 
doubted  whether  there  is  any  foundation  for  this  assertion,  save  in 
a  very  limited  classification,  but  assuming  it  to  be  true  that  wages 


56  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

are    higher    with    reference    to    certain    industries,  that    increase  is 
obviously  attributable  to  other  causes. 

But  if  wages  have  increased,  is  such  increase  due  to  the  mono 
metallic  standard,  and  must  wages  depreciate  because  of  the  Sherman 
law?  Are  we  to  suppose  that  no  other  cause  or  causes  influenced 
wages  in  this  country  than  the  action  of  our  Government  regarding 
currency?  During  the  last  campaign  gentlemen  who  now  sit  in  this 
Chamber  were  preaching  Democracy  to  assembled  multitudes,  and  they 
never  gave  as  a  reason  for  appreciation  of  wages  the  argument  they 
rely  upon  here.  Do  they  still  hold  to  their  older  and  oft-asserted  view? 
Is  it  true  that  wages  have  appreciated  merely  because  we  demone 
tized  silver? 

I  well  remember  that  we  all  contended,  and  I  think  with  much 
force,  that  the  well-organized  exertions  of  trades  unions  had  much  to 
do  with  keeping  up  labor  prices.  No  general  rule  can  be  applied  to 
this  matter  from  which  any  such  deduction  as  that  insisted  upon  by  the 
Senator  from  Delaware  is  authorized.  In  the  same  States  for  the  same 
class  of  labor  and  the  same  number  of  hours,  different  rates  are 
charged.  North,  South,  East,  and  West  prices  vary,  depending  often 
upon  the  mere  ability  of  the  laborer  to  obtain  his  rights,  and  in  some 
instances  of  the  employer  to  procure  his  work  to  be  done  at  a  reason 
able  rate. 

I  have  heard  it  said  that  we  are  suffering  in  this  country  from  a 
redundancy,  from  an  overplus,  an  extravagant  quantity  of  circulating 
medium ;  that  the  great  difficulty  is,  we  have  too  much.  I  have  seen 
nothing  to  indicate  that  the  experience  of  others  has  been  less  sad  than 
my  own.  Not  for  me  have  there  been  strewn  along  the  highways 
during  this  panic  golden  dollars. 

No  redundancy  have  I  observed. 

It  has  been  said,  and  truly,  that  if  money  is  not  in  circulation  it 
makes  no  difference  whether  or  not  there  is  much  of  it  in  the  country. 
That  is  a  fact.  I  admit  that  when  gold  is  hoarded,  if  it  is  hoarded 
never  to  be  taken  out,  it  might  as  well  have  remained  buried  in  the 
everlasting  hills.  But  if  there  is  a  considerable  quantity  of  money 
about  it  is  easier  to  acquire  it  than  when  there  is  a  very  small  amount 
in  sight.  I  presume  that  if  there  were  but  a  million  dollars  in  gold  in 
all  the  world  some  Senators  here  might  be  able  occasionally  to  grasp 
a  piece  of  the  coveted  metal.  But  all  would  feel  the  contraction.  The 
difficulty  would  be  increased  as  the  amount  of  the  metal  decreased.  If 
there  were  but  $100  in  gold  in  all  the  world  I  do  not  suppose  that  I 
would  know  any  more  about  the  metal  than  I  do  with  reference  to  the 
rarest,  largest  and  most  brilliant  diamonds  and  rubies.  Nor  would  I 
use  more  of  the  article  than  I  do  of  attar  of  roses,  which  I  believe  our 
friends  upon  the  other  side  put  upon  the  free  list.  [Laughter.] 

One  of  the  most  distinguished  monometallists  of  Great  Britain  is 
Mr.  Giffen,  chief  of  the  statistical  department  of  the  board  of  trade, 
and  although  he  has  not  seen  fit  in  his  later  work  to  republish  the 
views  I  am  about  to  quote,  I  desire,  nevertheless,  to  quote  an  abstract 
from  his  paper  entitled  "  Recent  Changes  in  Prices  and  Incomes  Com 
pared."  He  there  positively  places  himself  upon  record  in  support  of 
the  proposition  that  gold  has  notably  appreciated,  and  moreover  he 
argued  that  this  appreciation  was  likely  to  continue,  and  that  therein 
was  found  the  true  explanation  of  the  fall  in  the  price  of  commodities. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


57 


In  1879  he  pointed  out  that  this  rise  would  soon  become  evident. 
Let  me  quote: 

If  the  test  of  prophecy  be  the  event,  there  was  never  surely  a  better  fore 
cast.  The  fall  of  prices  in  such  a  general  way  as  to  amount  to  what  is  known 
as  a  rise  in  the  purchasing  power  of  gold  is  generally,  I  might  almost  say 
universally  admitted.  Measured  by  any  commodity,  or  group  of  commodi 
ties,  usually  taken  as  the  measure  for  such  a  purpose,  gold  is  undoubtedly 
possessed  of  more  purchasing  power  than  was  the  case  fifteen  or  twenty 
years  ago,  and  this  high  purchasing  power  has  been  continued  over  a  long 
enough  period  to  allow  for  all  minor  oscillations. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  read  Sauerbeck's  Index-numbers,  which  I  have 
here,  but  I  commend  them  to  the  perusal  of  Senators  who  have  not 
already  read  them.  I  commend  them  to  the  investigation  of  any  one 
who  is  studying  this  question  as  showing  the  basis  of  forty-five  of  the 
principal  commodities — a  large  number  surely — selected  some  time  ago 
and  subjected  successfully  to  the  intelligent  criticism  of  the  world. 


Years. 

Mr.  Sauerbeck's  in 
dex  numbers  — 

Years. 

Mr.  Sauerbeck's  in 
dex  numbers  — 

Of  45 
principal 
com  m  odi- 
ties. 

Of 
Silver. 

Of  45 
principal 
com  m  odi- 
ties. 

Of 
Silver. 

1874 

102 
96 
95 

94 
87 
83 
88 
85 
84 
82 

95.8 
93.3 
86.7 
90.2 
86.4 
84.2 
85.9 
85.0 
84.9 
83.1 

1884 

76 

72 
69 
68 
70 

72 
72 
72 
68 

83.3 
79.9 
74.6 
73.3 
70.4 
70.2 
78.4 
74.1 
65.4 

1875 

1885 

1876 

1886  

1877 

1887              

1878 

1888  

1879 

1889  

1880 

1890  

1881  

1891  

1882          

1892  

1883  

This  table  is  worthy  of  more  study  that  it  has  received.  It  shows, 
taking  the  silver  and  the  commodity  numbers  and  comparing  them,  the 
most  remarkable  results.  It  appears  to  me  that  it  affords  a  demonstra 
tion  of  the  truth  of  our  assertion  that  gold  has  appreciated.  I  am 
aware  of  the  existence  of  that  other  table,  compiled  by  the  learned 
gentleman  who  resides  in  Massachusetts,  and  which  was  read  here 
yesterday. 

I  fully  understand  that  he  there  calls  attention  to  the  circumstance 
that  plows  and  certain  other  articles  can  be  bought  today  with  fewer 
bushels  of  wheat  than  some  years  ago;  but  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
table  constitutes  a  fair  test. 

The  Senator  from  Delaware  argues,  as  do  many  of  the  authorities, 
that  the  fall  in  the  value  of  the  various  commodities  is  due  to  the  great 
development  which  has  been  made  in  the  arts,  and  he  calls  attention  to 
Bessemer  steel  as  a  notable  instance.  So  it  is  a  notable  instance,  and  so 
far  as  steel  is  concerned,  it  is  clearly  established  that  improved  methods 
have  lessened  the  cost ;  and  there  are  many  similar  cases. 

If  the  fall  in  prices  was  due  to  improvements  in  machinery  the 
prices  would  be  maintained  with  reference  to  those  articles  regarding 
which  there  had  been  no  improvements  affecting  production,  and  in 
cases  where  inventions  and  new  appliances  had  diminished  the  cost  the 


58  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

depreciation  would  be  noticed.  But  we  know  that  there  has  been  a  uni 
form  fall  of  prices  all  along  the  line,  and  the  tables  and  charts  prepared 
by  eminent  statisticians  clearly  prove  that  the  drop  has  been  general 
and  is  therefore  due  to  some  cause  utterly  different  from  that  to  which 
Sir  John  Lubbock  and  others  attribute  it.  For  instance,  let  us  take 
wool,  at  present  very  low.  My  Republican  friends  may  say  that  this  is 
because  our  people  are  afraid  of  tariff  changes.  Let  us  so  assume, 
and  take  a  date  anterior  to  the  triumph  of  the  Democratic  ticket, 
and  it  will  be  found  that  then  wool  was  exceedingly  dull  throughout 
the  country,  and  on  the  Pacific  coast,  where  the  staple  is;  short,  owing 
to  the  circumstances  that  we  are  compelled  to  clip  twice  a  year,  wool 
was  sd  low  prior  to  Mr.  Cleveland's  election  that  it  did  not  even  reach 
the  duty  line. 

It  is  untrue  that  the  expense  of  wool-growing  has  become  less 
and  less  as  years  have  rolled  by.  When  a  child  I  have  seen  thou 
sands  of  sheep  roaming  over  the  public  domain,  the  pasturage  of 
which  cost  the  man  who  owned  them  not  a  cent.  Gradually  as  the 
progressive  American  moved  over  this  territory  and  took  it  up  under 
the  homestead  and  pre-emption  laws,  the  ranges  were  curtailed  and 
the  sheep  were  driven  back,  so  that  now  many  of  them  subsist  at  cer 
tain  seasons  on  the  mountain  sides,  sometimes  at  an  altitude  of  from 
8000  to  10,000  feet  above  the  sea,  there  seeking  with  difficulty  that 
support  before  readily  obtained.  Hence  the  expense  of  maintenance 
has  increased.  Besides,  lands  have  become  useful  for  other  purposes, 
and  the  sheep  in  the  West  is  becoming  more  andi  more  a  burden. 

Therefore  there  is  depression  not  alone  in  those  lines  concern 
ing  which  the  cost  of  production  is  lessened,  but  it  is  found  all 
throughout  the  list,  demonstrating  to  you  as  legislative  physicians 
that  some  other  prescription  must  be  applied  than  that  suggested 
by  the  Senators  who  are  opposed  to  me. 

I  believe  that  a  careful  analysis  of  the  situation  will  show 
numerous  examples  which  can  not  be  explained  upon  the  basis 
expressed  in  the  ably  conducted  argument  of  the  Senator  from  Dela 
ware.  I  have  not  had  time  to  carefully  scan  this  branch  of  our  dis 
pute,  but  have  said  enough  to  suggest  a  conclusion.  In  the  matter 
of  eggs  there  has  not  been  any  invention  promoting  production. 
The  ancient  methods  are)  still  utilized.  And  yet  I  find  there  the  same 
depreciation. 

It  has  been  frequently  stated,  and  truly,  that  the  gold  price  of 
silver  prior  to  1873  was  remarkably  stable,  and  that  since  that  time 
it  has  been  utterly  unstable.  But  the  theory  that  silver  has  depre 
ciated  and  gold  remained  stable  does  not  account  for  admitted 
phenomena.  I  refer  to  the  phenomena  which  I  have  just  recited. 
Suppose  that  we  adopt  a  gold  standard,  pure  and  simple,  manifestly 
when  gold  is  very  plentiful  it  will  buy  fewer  things,  and  this  is  called 
a  rise  in  prices.  When  gold  is  scarce  it  will  buy  more  of  every 
thing.  This  means  a  fall  in  prices.  There  is  no  mystery  as  to  this. 
The  experience  of  every  gold-standard  country  in  the  world  discloses 
a  universal  fall  in  the  prices  of  commodities. 

An  let  it  be  remembered — and  it  is  a  most  cogent  circumstance 
— that  this  depreciation  does  not  antedate  1873.  If  we  are  trying 
this  case  upon  its  merits,  and  are  to  enter  a  judgment  upon  it,  let 
us  look  at  the  evidence.  The  rule  suggested  by  the  other  side  does 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITB.  59 

not  apply,  because  the  fall  is  universal  and  the  diminished  cost  of 
production  is  not  universal. 

Then  we  have  this  other  significant  feature,  that  the  fall  in  the 
price  of  commodities  dates  from  1873,  or  thereabouts — the  date  of 
the  demonetization  of  silver.  Why  is  this  remarkable  coincidence 
presented?  There  may  be  some  means  other  than  that  hinted  at 
to  account  for  it.  I  am  not  here  to  withhold  any  information.  I 
know  that  I  am  obliged  to  bring  forth  every  fact  that  will  tend  to 
elucidate.  The  truth  should  be  known  that  we  may  legislate  wisely 
and  in  the  interest  of  the  people  whom  we  represent.  I  can  not  find 
and  have  not  heard  any  explanation  in  harmony  with  the  gold 
appreciation  theory,  of  the  incidents  which  I  have  cited. 

In  China,  where  gold  is  a  mere  commodity  and  is  sold  just  as 
lead  or  tin  would  be  in  this  country,  prices  have  not  varied  in  twenty 
years.  This  information  I  derive  from  an  article  quoted  in  the  San 
Francisco  Chronicle,  and  written  by  W.  S.  Wetmore,  for  the  Hong- 
Kong  papers.  Mr.  Wetmore  selected  some  twenty  articles  for  his 
index  numbers  and  discovered  that  the  prices  had  been  practically 
stationary  since  1873,  while  gold  had  risen  nearly  50  per  cent. 

In  a  recent  article  by  the  same  gentleman,  printed  in  the  North 
China  News,  he  shows  that  notwithstanding  the  enormous  depre 
ciation  in  the  gold  price  of  silver  in  Europe,  America,  and  India, 
there  has  been  no  variation  of  importance  in  either  China  or  Japan. 
He  gives  an  instance  within  his  own  personal  experience  to  illustrate 
his  meaning.  Seventeen  years  ago  he  employed  a  boy  at  a  salary 
of  twenty-one  Mexican  dollars  a  month,  and  although  at  the  present 
time  silver  is  worth  in  gold  less  than  a  third  of  its  former  price, 
Mr.  Wetmore  has  discovered  that  his  servant  is  able  to  live  now  just 
as  well  as  he  did  in  1876  and  has  not  deprived  himself  of  any  of 
the  advantages  which  he  then  enjoyed,  although,  as  I  have  said, 
commodities  have  not  fallen. 

At  the  risk  of  being  tautological,  I  will  say  that  in  all  the  great 
silver-using  countries  of  the  world  an  ounce  of  silver  will  buy  just 
as  much  of  the  necessities  of  life  at  this  day  as  could  have  been 
bought  twenty  years  ago.  If  gold  is  declared  to  be  the  standard  of 
thei  world,  and  if  it  is  said  that  there  is  no  other  kind  of  money,  gold 
will  be  more  sought  for,  there  will  be  greater  need  for  it,  its  pur 
chasing  power  will  necessarily  increase. 

If  half  the  stock  of  gold  were  destroyed,  no  one  doubts  that  the 
remaining  portion  would  be  more  valuable.  And  so,  if  the  use  to 
which  gold  is  applied  be  made  more  extended,  if  it  becomes  more 
essential  to  the  public  comfort,  so  will  we  be  more  anxious  to  get  it, 
so  will  its  purchasing  power  develop.  This  subject  was  very  ably 
and  thoroughly  discussed  by  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Nevada 
in  his  argument  before  the  Brussels  conference.  Indeed,  he  left 
nothing  to  be  said  upon  the  subject.  The  man  who  insists  that  the 
less  money  we  have  in  the  world  the  better  off  we  are  is  no  more 
inconsistent  than  the  party  who  admits,  as  he  must,  that  the  legis 
lation  of  the  world  has  been  in  favor  of  gold,  and  that  metal  has  been 
cornered  and  placed  in  a  few  hands,  and  still  insists  that  its  pur 
chasing  power  has  not  increased.  Mr.  Balfour  declares  that — 

An  appreciation  of  the  standard  of  value  is  probably  the  most  deadening 


60  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

and    benumbing    influence    which    can    touch    the    springs    of    enterprise    in    a 
nation. 

The  same  authority  says: 

I  have  no  hesitation  now  in  asserting  what  I  have  often  asserted  before, 
that  if  you  cannot  attain  this  absolutely  theoretical  perfection  it  is  better  for 
the  community  at  large  that  your  standard  should  be  a  depreciating  standard 
than  that  it  should  be  an  appreciating  standard. 

IS   A   DOUBLE   STANDARD   PRACTICABLE  ? 

I  have  heard  gentlemen  who  declare  that  they  stand  upon  the 
Democratic  platform  declare  that  there  is  no  such  possibility  as  a 
double  standard.  I  have  said  enough  with  reference  to  those  who 
criticise  the  platform  upon  which  they  were  elected  and  will  address 
myself  to  the  merits  of  this  proposition  exclusively. 

Speaking  upon  this  subject  on  February  15,  1878,  the  Senator 
from  Nevada  [Mr.  JONES],  whose  remarks  at  the  Brussels  conference 
gained  him  such  wide  commendation,  said : 

Our  money  system  was  not  based  upon  the  idea  that  we  should  have  both 
metals  always  and  concurrently  in  circulation,  but  upon  the  idea  that  there 
might  occur  occasional  variations  in  their  value,  and  that  it  would  always  be 
to  our  advantage  in  every  respect  to  make  avail  of  the  cheaper  of  the  two. 
The  great  feature  of  the  double  or  optional  standard  is  not  the  actual  use  of 
both  metals,  but  the  right  to  use  either.  The  option  of  using  either  metal 
was  enjoyed  by  the  United  States  without  let  or  hindrance  until  i873-'74- 
This  right  of  option  of  choosing  either  metal  in  which  to  make  payment  suf 
ficiently  accounts  for  the  fact  that  after  1840  gold,  then  practically  having 
become  the  cheaper  metal,  largely  predominated  in  the  coinage.  It  was  upon 
this  very  theory  that  our  coinage  laws  were  framed,  and  when  silver  became 
the  dearer  metal  the  demand  for  its  coinage  diminished.  Was  it  ever  charged 
in  1873  that  the  gold  dollar  was  a  depreciated  dollar,  a  97-cent  dollar,  because 
at  that  time  its  value  was  3  per  cent,  below  the  value  of  the  silver  dollar  ? 

Mr.  Balfour  handles  the  subject  very  ably.     He  says: 

I  am  well  aware  that  there  is  a  vast  mass  of  opinion — I  think  not  well-in 
formed  opinion — to  the  effect  that  a  man  who  maintains  the  possibility  of 
bimetallism  should  be  ranked  with  those  who  think  that  the  sun  goes  round 
the  earth  or  that  the  earth  itself  is  a  flat  disc.  But  I  may  say  without  offense 
that  those  who  hold  this  opinion  show  themselves  but  little  instructed  in  the 
recent  history  of  the  subject.  It  is  permissible  for  those  who  base  their 
opinion  on  these  matters  upon  the  imperfectly  remembered  scraps  of  eco 
nomic  knowledge  picked  up  fifty  years  ago — it  is  permissible  for  them  still  to 
hold  the  view  that  a  bimetallist  is  a  harmless  lunatic  who  if  he  only  confines 
his  lunacy  to  this  particular  question  cannot  be  regarded  as  more  dangerous 
to  the  public  peace  than  any  other  confirmed  bore.  But  I  do  not  think  that 
any  man  who  has  seriously  considered  the  literature  of  this  subject  during 
the  last  generation  holds  this  opinion  or  can  possibly  hold  it. 

I  doubt  whether  there  is  a  single  economist  of  reputation  under  60  years  of 
age  who  will  commit  himself  to  the  view  that  it  is  impossible  to  maintain  the 
double  standard.  If  there  be  such  a  man  I  do  not  know  his  name,  and  if  it  be, 
indeed,  an  absurdity  to  suppose  that  this  double  standard  can  be  maintained, 
then,  indeed,  we  are  in  a  bad  case,  because  from  every  chair  of  political  econ 
omy  in  this  country  and  America,  not  to  speak  of  Holland  and  other  conti 
nental  nations,  I  believe  it  is  taught  that  the  bimetallic  theory  is  a  theory 
which  will  stand  critical  examination. 

Remember,  I  am  not  asserting  that  every  distinguished  economist  is  a 
bimetallist;  I  am  not  asserting  that  they  would  if  they  could  establish  a  double 
instead  of  a  single  standard;  but  no  economist  of  repute  will  lend  his  name  to 
the  idiotic  objections  —  if  I  may  use  the  expression  without  offense  —  to  bimet 
allism  which  you  will  see  in  some  of  the  daily  newspapers,  objections  which 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  61 

appear  to  be  founded  on  the  view  that  to  hold  that  a  stable  ratio  can  be  main 
tained  between  silver  and  gold  is  something  like  holding  that  value  is  not 
determined  by  the  laws  of  supply  and  demand  or  the  cost  of  production, 
but  that  it  can  be  settled  by  the  mere  fiat  of  government. 

Those  who  hold  that  view  show  an  ignorance  of  the  very  elements  of  the 
question  which  make  it  —  I  do  not  wish  to  say  anything  offensive  —  hardly 
worth  while  arguing  with  them.  They  do  not  appear  to  have  realized  that 
as  it  rests  and  must  rest  with  the  government,  with  every  government,  to  say 
what  shall  be  legal  tender  within  the  limits  of  the  state,  so  it  must  rest  with 
the  government  to  determine  what  shall  be  the  greatest  cause  of  demand  for 
that  which  it  says  is  legal  tender;  and  therefore,  to  suppose  that  you  can  dis 
miss  this  doctrine  by  saying  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  law  of  supply  and 
demand  is  to  ignore  the  main  element  of  the  problem. 

In  fact,  I  should  say  that  the  bimetallic  theory  affords  the  most  beautiful 
illustration  known  to  me  from  a  theoretic  point  of  view,  of  the  operation  of 
the  laws  of  supply  and  demand,  in  a  specially  interesting  and  instructive 
case;  but  I  have  usually  found  that  those  who  most  denounce  theory,  at  all 
events  are  usually  convinced  by  what  they  regard  as  practice.  But  even 
practice  and  experience  in  this  case  are  not  enough  to  convince  the  theoretic 
monometallists.  They  absolutely  shut  their  eyes  to  the  fact  that,  so  far  from 
bimetallism  being  an  impossibility,  it  has  been  the  actual  system  in  force 
over  a  long  period  of  lime  and  over  great  districts,  and  that  when  it  was  in 
force  it  produced  every  effect  which  every  bimetallist  has  ever  claimed  for 
the  employment  of  the  double  standard. 

The  same  distinguished  man  also   remarked  : 

If  you  have  a  joint  standard  —  if,  in  other  words,  you  can  count  for  your 
supply  of  currency  not  merely  upon  the  gold  supply  of  the  world,  but  upon  the 
gold  supply  plus  the  silver  supply  —  it  is  evident  that  the  effect  of  any  single 
cause  of  change  is  diminished,  because  it  is  spread  over  a  wider  area.  If  you 
have  a  cistern  holding,  let  us  say,  a  thousand  gallons,  and  you  choose  to 
divide  that  cistern  into  halves,  each  holding  500  gallons,  then  it  is  evident 
that  to  withdraw  from  one  of  those  compartments  100  gallons  will  made  a  far 
greater  change  in  the  level  of  that  compartment  than  if  the  whole  cistern 
were  one  and  you  withdrew  your  hundred  gallons,  not  from  the  500  gallons, 
but  from  the  undivided  mass  of  a  thousand  gallons.  That  is  an  elementary 
way  of  looking  at  it,  which,  elementary  though  it  be,  will  probably  bring  con 
viction  to  those  who  will  carefully  consider  it.  So  much  for  the  first  cause  of 
variation  of  the  standard,  on  which,  I  think,  you  will  admit  that  a  double 
standard  has  the  advantages  over  a  single  standard. 

Prof.  Francis  Walker,  of  the  Sheffield  Scientific  School,  said: 

The  extensive  fall  in  the  value  of  silver  since  1873,  which  is  often  referred 
to  as  proving  the  unfitness  of  silver  to  be  joined  with  gold  in  the  office  of 
moneys,  appears  to  me  to  show  most  strikingly  the  power  of  legislation  in 
keeping  the  two  metals  together.  If  gold  and  silver  actually  held  a  course 
through  three  centuries  so  nearly  parallel,  yet  when  silver  was  demonetized 
by  the  United  States  and  Germany,  and  the  Latin  Union  ceased  to  coin  silver 
in  unrestricted  amount,  the  price  of  gold  expressed  in  terms  of  silver  mounted 
upward  in  four  years  from  15.63  to  17.77,  rising  momentarily  even  to  20.17  — 
these  two  facts  taken  in  connection  would  seem  to  afford  a  very  strong  proof 
of  their  interchangeable  use  as  money  in  keeping  their  market  values  together. 

I  believe  that  these  references  are  sufficient  to  meet  the  objec 
tions  which  I  have  been  considering. 


CAN  THE  UNITED  STATES   MAINTAIN   FREE  COINAGE  WITHOUT  INTERNA 
TIONAL  AGREEMENT  ? 

It  is  only  necessary  to  examine  the  proceedings  of  the  Brussels 
Conference  to  thoroughly  appreciate  the  difficulties  in  the  path  of 
international  agreement. 


62  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  Cramer-Frey,  delegate  from  Switzerland,  said: 

I  should  be  an  unworthy  disciple  of  the  lamented  M.  Peer  Herzog,  who 
represented  Switzerland  at  the  conference  of  1878,  and  an  unworthy  successor 
to  M.  Burckhardt  Bischoff,  whose  interesting  work  on  Bimetallism  and  the 
Conference  of  1881,  at  which  he  was  a  Swiss  delegate,  will  have  been  duly 
esteemed  by  many  of  you,  if  I  ever  entertained  the  idea  that  bimetallism  would 
be  admissible  for  us.  My  colleague,  M.  Rivier,  and  myself  have  received  the 
most  formal  instructions  to  this  effect  from  our  government. 

Mr.  Zeppa,  delegate  of  Italy,  said: 

It  is  astonishing  that  persons  of  admittedly  high  intelligence  and  general 
culture  are  to  be  found  who  would  wish  to  lead  nations  backward  and  to 
re-establish  bimetallism. 

Mr.  Weber,  delegate  of  Belgium,  closes  his  remarks  with  these 
words : 

The  forced  circulation  of  silver  appears  iniquitous,  from  whichever  stand 
point  the  question  is  regarded,  and,  in  seeking  to  favor  the  expansion  of  industry 
and  commerce  by  international  means,  we  must  not  look  for  help  to  the  mint, 
but  to  the  custom-house. 

Mr.  Boissevain,  delegate  of  the  Netherlands,  did  not  agree  with 
his  more  radical  brethren. 

Mr.  Tirard,  delegate  of  France,  expresses  himself  as  believing 
that  France  was  satisfied  with  the  prevailing  conditions,  and  his 
remarks  were  so  positive  that  they  were  construed  at  the  time  by 
Mr.  Cannon,  one  of  our  delegates,  as  meaning  that  France  was 
less  favorable  to  bimetallism  than  England,  a  view,  however,  which 
Mr.  Tirard  repudiated. 

Mr.  Raffalovich,  delegate  of  Russia,  strongly  favors  gold. 

Mr.  Rothschild  expressed  himself,  as  we  all  know,  in  the  most 
positive  terms,  approving  of  the  financial  policy  of  England,  though 
he  did  venture  the  assertion  that  he  saw  no  objection  to  silver  being 
made  a  legal  tender  in  England  up  to  £5  instead  of  ^2,  as  at  present. 
And  he  made  a  suggestion  which  is  of  considerable  importance,  as 
follows : 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  European  powers,  holding  as  they  do  large  amounts 
of  coined  and  uncoined  silver,  cannot  be  indifferent  to  the  market  price  of 
that  metal;  and,  as  to  England,  we  have  no  right  to  look  at  one  side  of  the 
question  only  and  to  ignore  the  complaints  of  a  powerful  minority. 

He  also  said: 

Gentlemen,  I  need  hardly  remind  you  that  the  stock  of  silver  in  the  world 
is  estimated  at  some  thousands  of  millions,  and  if  this  conference  were  to 
break  up  without  arriving  at  any  definite  result  there  would  be  a  depreciation 
in  the  value  of  that  commodity  which  it  would  be  frightful  to  contemplate 
and  out  of  which  a  monetary  panic  would  ensue,  the  far-spreading  effects  of 
which  it  would  be  impossible  to  foretell. 

The  conference  did  break  up,  or  adjourned  without  day,  and  it 
is  now  proposed  to  choke  the  last  breath  out  of  silver.  International 
bimetallism  may  be  accomplished  if  the  United  States  stands  firm, 
but  if  we  throw  up  our  hands  as  the  advocates  of  unconditional 
repeal  request  us  to  do,  the  fight  is  determined.  If  one  engaged  in 
personal  contest,  conscious  that  his  strength  is  failing,  throws  him 
self  at  the  feet  of  his  adversary  and,  placing  his  foeman's  heel  upon 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  63 

his  neck,  suggests  a  compromise,  his  attitude  is  ridiculous.  Much 
better  for  him  would  it  have  been  to  prolong  the  struggle  and  rely 
for  a  favorable  proposition  upon  his  adversary's  desire  to  avoid  a 
culmination,  the  exact  nature  of  which  could  not  be  foretold. 

I  am  aware  of  the  answer  made  time  and  time  again  to  this  argu 
ment.  It  is  insisted  that  the  way  to  bring  about  an  international 
agreement  is  to  absolutely  demonetize  silver.  We  all  admit  that 
silver  money  is  necessary,  and  we  are  told  that  if  we  put  ourselves 
in  the  position  now  occupied  by  England,  France,  and  other  coun 
tries,  in  time  they  will  suffer  so  much  that  we  will  be  able  to  force 
concessions.  Thus  we  are  asked  to  undergo  the  Dr.  Tanner  pro 
cess.  We  are  to  put  ourselves  upon  a  starvation  basis,  and  must 
rest  our  hopes  upon  our  ability  to  endure  privations  longer  than 
others. 

Mr.  PEFFER.     And  then  begin  with  watermelons  to  recover. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  scarcely  think  that  the  influence 
of  watermelons  would  cure  us  under  such  circumstances.  I  believe 
that  it  would  take  more  stimulation  than  even  this  wonderful  country 
has  within  its  bosom. 

Mr.  HOAR.  The  difference  between  the  Democratic  party  and 
Populists  is  the  question  of  stimulation. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  The  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
refers  to  the  difference  between  the  Populists  and  the  Democratic 
party,  which  he  says  is  a  matter  of  stimulation.  My  experience, 
acquired  not  only  here  but  elsewhere,  is  that  we  can  gather  our 
Republican  friends  upon  that  issue  into  a  common  fold;  upon  such 
a  platform  they  will  not  refuse  to  stand.  We  are  not  differing 
greatly  upon  that  proposition;  and  I  really  think  that  a  majority 
of  our  friends  the  Populists,  sympathize  with  us  in  a  degree  at  least. 

We  have  sent  our  delegates  to  Europe  and  have  urged  upon  the 
world  that  there  should  be  a  bimetallic  agreement  between  the 
powers,  and  we  have  declared  that  silver  should  be  accepted  as  money 
and  that  it  is  good  money ;  and  while  rmaking  all  this  talk,  and  in 
the  midst  of  our  argument,  we  propose  by  a  solemn  act  of  Congress 
to  take  away  all  the  potentiality  of  a  metal  which  we  produce  and 
flatter  ourselves  that  an  empty  declaration  which  has  no  place  in  the 
body  of  the  act,  and  which  is  simply  apologetic,  will  influence  other 
nations  to  change  their  system  and  will  be  a  substitute  for,  if  not 
better  than,  positive  legislation.  To  say  that  the  policy  recommended 
is  cowardly,  is  to  express  the  situation  in  very  moderate  terms. 

The  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Finance  has  introduced,  as 
I  have  said,  in  the  proposed  measure  an  announcement  that  silver 
is  good;  that  we  should  have  silver;  that  silver  should  be  coined  at 
the  mints  free  of  charge,  and  that  it  should  be  treated  in  all  respects 
as  gold  is  treated.  Wliile  making  that  declaration  we  decline  to 
signify  our  faith  in  it.  We  absolutely  abandon  silver  and  surrender 
in  the  midst  of  a  great  financial  struggle  with  foreign  powers.  We 
bow  before  them  and  cast  ourselves  trembling  at  their  feet,  and  with 
their  feet  upon  our  necks  we  expect  a  compromise  and  concession. 

I  do  not  look  at  this  affair  from  a  sentimental  standpoint  merely, 
nor  have  I  any  false  pride  as  to  my  country.  I  regard  her  and 
cherish  her  as  sincerely  as  any  man  can,  for  I  feel  that  I  owe  much 
more  to  her  than  she  will  ever  obtain  from  me.  But  I  assert  that 


64  SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

if  we  do  not  show  our  faith  by  our  acts,  if  we  do  not  stand  by  the 
principles  in  which  we  assert  we  believe,  we  can  not  expect  others 
to  credit  us  with  good  faith,  and  we  can  not  anticipate  favorable 
action  from  those  upon  whom  it  is  important  that  our  influence 
should  be  made  effective. 

Remember,  Mr.  President,  that  the  history  of  this  subject  which 
I  have  already  narrated  makes  it  obvious  that  we  have  been  derelict 
not  merely  in  passing  the  so-called  demonetizing  act,  but  in  our  con 
duct  and  declarations  in  the  international  councils  that  have  been 
held  regarding  silver  years  ago.  When  we  sent  men  to  represent 
us,  and  when  those  men  themselves  expressed  a  lack  of  faith  in  silver, 
did  we  not  then  and  there  teach  the  lesson  of  wrong,  and  so  deeply 
impress  it  upon  the  minds  and  consciences  of  other  peoples  that  they 
are  unwilling  to  abandon  the  customs  and  policies  begotten  by  our 
instruction  ?  Can  we  add  any  force  to  our  position,  can  we  expect 
to  gain  more  favorable  audience  if  we  desert  silver  and  present  to 
other  powers  the  debates  that  have  been  had  in,  this  Chamber  ?  Will 
they  not  find  every  argument  that  was  ever  utilized  by  a  gold  mono- 
metallist  in  speeches  which!  have  been  made  in  the  present  Congress  ? 
Will  they  not  encounter  the  solemn  declarations  of  more  than  one 
Chief  Executive  and  of  the  men  nearest  Administrations  to  the  effect 
that  we  do  not  after  all  have  so  high  a  regard  for  silver  ?  When 
we  confront  these  foreign  financiers  with  the  statement  in  our  bill 
that  we  are  in  favor  of  doing  something  which  we  are  not  prepared 
to  do  will  not  these  statesmen,  those  men  of  thought  and  experience 
in  human  affairs,  smile  at  us  as  they  have  smiled  before  ? 

But,  as  I  remarked,  I  do  not  consider  it  essential  that  we  shall 
have  the  concurrence  of  foreign  powers.  If  I  did  I  should  regard 
the  task  as  difficult  in  the  extreme.  I  should  wait,  perhaps,  with 
glimmering  faith  for  the  future,  but  I  would  rely  more  upon  hope 
than  upon  faith,  for  I  do  not  believe  that  if  we  abandon  silver  we  can 
reasonably  look  during  our  generation  for  its  adoption  as  a  money 
metal  by  the  principal  nations.  In  some  countries  perhaps  it  may 
be  necessary.  In  India  it  is  probable  that  no  matter  what  we  do  the 
necessities  of  the  case  and  the  loss  which  England  has  already  sus 
tained  in  her  Eastern  trade  may  lead  to  a  reversal  of  her  policy,  but 
the  way  to  obtain  proper  standing  for  silver  is  to  stand  by  it  our 
selves.  It  is  not,  as  I  have  frequently  said,  to  cast  it  by  the  wayside 
as  unworthy  of  contact,  or  to  relegate  it  to  an  obscurity  from  which 
it  can  never  emerge. 

Great  Britain  has  been  a  gold-standard  country  ever  since  1816, 
and  that  very  year  she  made  a  strenuous  effort  to  discard  silver, 
but  failed  to  succeed  in  doing  so.  This  is  demonstrated  by  an 
inspection  of  the  table  of  ratios  already  in  evidence. 

Thus  in  1815  the  ratio  of  silver  to  gold  was  15.26,  in  1816  it  was 
15.28,  in  1817  it  was  15.11. 

Silver  ruled  a  little  more  than  three-quarters  of  a  cent  higher 
per  ounce  in  1817  than  in  1816.  There  was  subsequently  a  decline 
which  did  not  exceed  3  cents  in  thirty  years.  And  it  has  been 
said  that  the  fluctuations  during  that  period  were  not  greater  than 
the  rate  of  discount  in  the  Bank  of  England. 

I  wish  to  say  that  I  have  heard  many  remarks  in  reference  to 
the  declarations  of  Lord  Liverpool,  whose  Treatise  on  Coins  of 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  65 

the  Realm  had  so  much  to  do  with  the  British  fiscal  legislation  of 
1816.     Sir  David  Barbour  says: 

In  no  portion  of  Lord  Liverpool's  Treatise  on  Coins  of  the  Realm  is  there 
any  illusion  to  — 

I.  The  Treasury  order  of  25th  of  October,  1697,  directing  that  the  guineas 
should  be  taken  at  2,2.8.  each. 

II.  The  Council  order  of  8th  of  September,  1698,  referring  the  question  of 
the  high  rate  of  the  guinea  to  the  Council  of  Trade. 

III.  The  report  of  the  Council  of  Trade,  dated  22nd  of  September,  1689. 

IV.  The  resolution  of  the  House  of  Commons  on  that  report. 

V.  The  orders  of  the  Treasury  to  receive  the  guineas  on  public  account  at 
2is.  6d.  each,  "  and  not  otherwise." 

With  the  publication  of  these  documents,  falls  Lord  Liverpool's  statement 
that  the  English  people,  by  general  consent  and  without  any  interposition  of 
public  authority,  attached  a  higher  value  to  the  guinea  after  the  great  recoin- 
age  than  the  market  value  of  gold  would  justify;  and  with  the  fall  of  the 
alleged  fact  must  disappear  the  conclusion  drawn  from  it,  namely,  that  with 
the  increase  of  wealth  and  commerce  the  English  people  in  1698  had  come  to 
prefer  gold  to  silver.  And  with  the  disappearing  of  this  hypothesis  there  dis 
appears  the  only  evidence  brough  forward  in  support  of  the  theory  regarding 
the  progress  of  wealthy  countries  from  silver  to  gold,  which  Lord  Liverpool 
invented  in  order  to  overthrow  Locke's  opinion  that  "gold  is  not  the  money 
of  the  world  or  measure  of  commerce,  nor  fit  to  be  so." 

In  Germany  and  Austria  in  1857  a  determined  effort  was  made 
to  demonetize  gold.  Singularly  enough  sometimes  we  are  dissatis 
fied  with  silver  and  sometimes  we  are  not  satisfied  with  gold.  But 
this  attempt  to  discredit  gold  did  not  affect  the  ratio.  The  Director 
of  the  Mint  informs  us  that  fine  silver  was  quoted  in  1857  at  l-353 
per  ounce;  in  1858,  at  1.344;  in  1859,  at  1.36;  in  1860,  1.352.  So 
that  the  unaided  policies  of  Austria  and  Germany,  to  which  I  have 
adverted,  were  not  sufficiently  potential  to  produce  the  conditions 
against  which  we  are  contending. 

Of  course,  such  action  tended  in  an  ulterior  direction,  but  were 
insufficient  to  produce  the  change.  The  last  straw  destined  to  break 
the  camel's  back,  i.  e.,  our  improvident  legislation,  had  not  been 
imposed. 

Germany  exacted  an  enormous  gold  indemnity  from  France  and 
thereupon  proceeded  to  demonetize  silver. 

In  1871  silver  was  quoted  on  an  average  at  1.326  per  ounce.  In 
1872  the  quotation  was  1.322,  and  there  was  no  sign  of  a  fall  until 
1873,  when  the  enactment  concerning  which  my  friend  from  Nevada 
[Mr.  STEWART]  has  said  so  much  slipped  through. 

If  the  market  quotations  are  worth  anything  at  all  they  show 
that  silver  received  its  severest  blow  and  that  its  depreciation  was 
mainly  caused  by  the  action  of  this  Government. 

And  if  we  were  potential  for  destruction,  may  not  our  efforts  in 
the  contrary  direction  be  productive  of  good  ? 

I  admit  that  the  legislation  of  Europe  has  influenced  matters. 
I  claim  that  legislation  has  its  effect  upon  financial  affairs,  but  I 
say  that  if  we  had  been  faithful  to  our  trust  even  the  power  of  Europe 
would  not  have  been  able  to  bring  about  the  perils  which  menace 
our  financial  integrity.  This  is  not  sentimentality,  but  a  mathemat 
ical  deduction  derived  from  the  quotations  and  figures  which  I  have 
given  and  from  the  demonstrations  of  that  great  teacher,  experience. 


66  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  HIGGINS.  Will  the  Senator  permit  me  to  ask  him  a 
question  ? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     Certainly. 

Mr.  HIGGINS.  I  ask  the  Senator  from  California  if  it  is  not  a 
fact  that  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  the  act  of  1873  was  upon 
a  paper  basis,  using  only  paper  and  not  coin  at  all,  and  that  there 
fore  any  effect  which  might  arise  from  the  act  of  1873  could  only 
have  a  possible  future  bearing,  that  future  bearing  being  then  beyond 
the  ken  of  man  to  know  ? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  My  answer  to  the  Senator  from 
Delaware  is,  that  up  to  the  date  mentioned  the  commercial  ratio 
remained  without  impairment;  and  that  when  the  fell  blow  was 
struck  the  result  which  I  am  now  relating  took  place  at  once,  and 
from  that  time  to  this  the  same  tendency  continues. 

Mr.  HIGGINS.  Then  I  ask  the  Senator  if  that  was  not  coinci 
dent  in  time  with  the  large  sales  of  German  silver  upon  the  market, 
and  if  that  was  not  the  cause  of  silver  going  down  ? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  Mr.  President,  let  facts  speak  for 
themselves.  I  admit  that  when  we  are  reasoning  from  circum 
stances  one  circumstance  alone  is  not  sufficient  to  justify  a  conclu 
sion;  and  it  may  be  that  in  all  the  array  which  I  have  presented 
and  in  all  the  experience  narrated  there  may  be  other  things  coin 
cident  which  it  may  be  said  may  suggest  a  result;  but  when  I  take 
the  history  of  this  country  and  the  history  of  other  countries  and 
find  that  the  demonetization  acts  and  the  transactions  with  reference 
to  gold  and  silver  did  not  produce  the  unfortunate  conditions  of 
which  we  complain,  and  when  I  see  that  the  moment  we  upon  our 
statute  books  abandoned  silver  that  then  the  difference  of  ratio 
became  manifest,  I  claim  that  I  have  made  a  case;  that  the  pre 
sumption  is  upon  my  side. 

Besides,  I  care  not  whether  paper  was  used  in  the  markets  of 
this  country  at  the  dates  mentioned  by  the  Senator;  there  was  then 
no>  law  in  existence  striking  at  silver.  There  was  then  no  man 
who  doubted  that  when  the  resumption  time  came  gold  and  silver 
would  be  the  money  of  the  people.  Our  citizens  had  learned  from 
Hamilton,  from  Webster,  from  the  great  teachers  who  stood  around 
the  cradle  of  this  Republic,  to  believe  that  gold  and  silver  consti 
tuted  our  money,  and  they  so  thought,  and  in  accord  with  that 
faith  and  the  experience  of  civilization  the  commercial  ratio  men 
tioned  was  easily  sustained. 

I  have  ever  doubted  whether  we  have  the  power  to  adopt  a  gold 
standard.  Mr.  Webster's  argument  upon  this  question  seems  strong 
and  sensible. 

Said  Mr.  Hamilton: 

To  annul  the  use  of  either  of  the  metals  as  money  is  to  abridge  the  quantity 
of  circulating  medium  and  is  liable  to  all  the  objections  which  arise  from  a 
comparison  of  benefits  of  a  full  with  the  evils  of  a  scanty  circulation. 

No  man  of  patriotism  until  recently  supposed  that  silver  and 
gold  would  be  divorced.  It  was  known  that  they  were  married  by 
nature's  ceremony  in  the  Sierras'  recesses.  It  was  known  that 
generally  wherever  these  metals  existed  that  the  disclosure  of  one 
meant  the  procurement  of  the  other.  Experience  had  demon- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  67 

strated  that  while  for  a  time  one  might  be  produced  in  larger  vol 
ume  than  the  other,  yet,  that  averaging  the  whole,  going  back  to 
the  earlier  days,  parity  was  well  maintained. 

No  argument  can  be  sustained  which  has  for  its  object  the 
enforcement  of  the  contention  that  the  present  state  of  affairs  has 
been  brought  about  otherwise  than  by  legislation,  and  by  the  legis 
lation  of  this  country  and  the  action  of  those  whom  we  have  placed 
in  power.  The  venerable  and  able  Senator  from  Vermont  declares 
that  we  must  find  a  new  market  for  silver.  This  is  not  very  cheer 
ing.  The  recent  expeditions  to  the  antartic  regions  have  resulted  in 
the  discovery  of  a  fine  stock  of  seals,  and  it  is  supposed  that  a  new 
field  will  be  opened  there  for  our  poaching  friends.  But  no  hope 
is  thrown  out  that  that  country  will  consume  much  silver. 

The  investigations  that  have  been  going  on  in  the  interior  of 
Africa  do  not  indicate  the  opening  of  any  new  market  there,  and  our 
flying  machines  are  not  sufficiently  perfected  to  justify  the  hope  that 
we  may  be  able  to  vend  our  products  to  residents  of  other  planets. 
Hence,  if  we  wait  for  the  new  market  suggested  by  the  Senator  from 
Vermont,  we  must  tarry  long  and  tearfully.  But  I  fail  to  note  the 
necessity  for  a  new  market.  The  world's  output  of  silver  is  steadily 
absorbed.  Says  the  Britannica: 

The  total  production  of  silver  in  the  Western  world,  from  the  discovery  of 
America  to  the  present  time,  has  been  in  value  about  £1,400,000,000,  of  which 
£300,000,000  remains  in  coins.  On  the  whole,  it  appears  quite  safe  to  estimate 
the  average  consumption  of  silver  in  the  arts  and  through  wear,  tear,  and 
loss,  as  fully  equal  to  three-fourths  the  production.  Lowe  in  1822  estimated 
it  at  two-thirds. 

So  great  has  been  the  consumption  of  the  precious  metals  in 
the  arts  that  according  to  the  statement  made  by  Senator  JONES  in 
the  Brussels  conference,  Sir  Lyon  Play  fair,  in  a  speech  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  April  18,  1890,  expressed  the  conviction  that  the 
demand  for  gold  for  purposes  outside  of  minting  amounted  to  at 
least  75  per  cent,  of  the  annual  production.  And  Mr.  Giffen  (who 
by  the  way  is  often  quoted  by  monometallists)  has  expressed  the 
belief  that  substantially  all  the  current  products  of  the  mines  are  used 
in  the  arts. 

It  appears  to  be  settled  that  sixty  millions  of  money  per  annum 
is  required  in  the  arts  and  that  thirty  millions  more  must  be  allowed 
for  abrasion  and  loss  of  coin.  And  Mr.  McCulloch  estimates  that 
there;  should  be  an  annual  addition  to  the  stock  in  Europe,  Australia, 
and  America  of  fifty  millions  to  keep  pace  with  the  increase  in  busi 
ness.  Thus  we  have  an  annual  total  for  all  interests  of  $140,000,000, 
and  it  must  be  evident  to  the  most  casual  observer  that  China,  which 
is  not  considered  in  this  estimate,  has  for  ages  absorbed  an  immense 
amount  of  silver. 

It  has  been  proven  by  eminent  statisticans  that  during  a  period 
pf  two  hundred  years  the  price  of  silver  in  the  world's  markets 
averaged  only  12  cents  an  ounce  from  the  legal  ratio  of  15  to  i. 

In  1760  the  price  realized  for  silver  was  $1.45  per  ounce,  or 
about  12  cents  more  than  the  amount  called  for  by  the  legally- 
established  ratio. 

In  1813  the  ruling  price  was  about  $1.26,  or  7  cents  an  ounce 
less  than  it  would  have  commanded  if  the  legal  and  commercial  ratio 
had  maintained  parity.  And  it  must  be  remarked  that  these  changes 


68 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


were  not  sudden  and  did  not  unsettle  values  to  the  slightest  extent, 
and  were  much  less  than  the  fluctuation  of  the  very  best  commercial 
paper. 

An  able  writer  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica,  in  discussing 
silver  and  considering  ancient  and  modern  ratios,  refers  to  those 
established  by  Portugal  in  1688,  Spain  in  1755,  and  France  in  1785. 
He  says: 

These  three  historical  ratios,  and  the  bearing  of  each  upon  the  other,  have 
influenced  all  legislation  upon  the  subject,  and,  where  there  was  no  legislation 
have  governed  the  bullion  markets  for  more  than  two  centuries. 

But  we  need  not  travel  for  information  upon  this  topic,  because 
the  history  of  silver  from  the  time  of  its  demonetization  in  1873 
settles  the  question. 

The  commercial  ratios  from  1687  to  1873  were  as  follows : 

Commercial  ratio  of  silver  to  gold,  1687  to  1873. 


Year 

Ratio 

Year 

Ratio 

Year 

Ratio 

Year 

Ratio 

1687 

14  94 

1734 

15.39 

1781 

14.78 

1828 

15  78 

1688 

14.94 

1735  

15.41 

1782  

14.42 

1829  

15.78 

1689 

15.02 

1736  

15.18 

1783  

14.48 

1830  

15.82 

1690 

15.02 

1737  

15.02 

1784  

1470 

1831  

15.72 

1691 

14  98 

1738 

14  91 

1785 

14.92 

1832  

15.73 

1692 

14.92 

1739  

14.91 

1786  

14.96 

1833  

15.93 

1693 

14  83 

1740 

14.94 

1787  .. 

14.92 

1834  

15.73 

1694 

14.87 

1741 

14.92 

1788  

14.65 

1835  

15.80 

1695 

15  02 

1742 

14.85 

1789  

14.75 

1836  

15.72 

1696 

15  00 

1743  .  . 

14.85 

1790  

15.04 

1837  

15.83 

1697 

15  20 

1744 

14.87 

1791  

15.05 

1838  

15.85 

1698 

15.07 

1745  .... 

14.98 

1792  

15.17 

1839  

15.62 

1699 

14.94 

1746 

15.13 

1793  

15.00 

1840  

15.62 

1700 

14  81 

1747 

15.26 

1794  

15.37 

1841  

15.70 

1701 

15.07 

1748  

15.11 

1795  

15.55 

1842  

15.87 

1702 

15.52 

1749  

14.80 

1796  

16.65 

1843  

15.93 

1703 

15  17 

1750  

14.55 

1797  

15.41 

1844  

15.85 

1704 

14.22 

1751  

14.39 

1798  

15.59 

1845  

15.92 

1705 

15  11 

1752 

14  54 

1799  .. 

15.74 

1846  

15  90 

1706 

15  27 

1753 

14  54 

1800 

15.68 

1847  

15.80 

1707 

15  44 

1754 

14  48 

1801 

15.46 

1848  

15.85 

1708 

15.41 

1755  

14.68 

1802  

15.26 

1849  

15.78 

1709  
1710  

15.31 

15.22 

1756  
1757  

14.94 

14.87 

1803  
1804  

15.41 
15.41 

1850  
1851  

15.70 
15.46 

1711  

15.29 

1758  

14.85 

1805  

15.79 

1852  

15.59 

1712  

15.31 

1759  

14.15 

1806  

15.52 

1853  

15.33 

1713  

15.24 

1760  

14.14 

1807  

15.43 

1854  

15.33 

1714 

15.13 

1761  

14  54 

1808  

16.08 

1855  

15.38 

1715 

15.11 

1762  

15.27 

1809  

15.96 

1856  

15.38 

1716 

15.09 

1763  

14.99 

1810  

15.77 

1857  

15.27 

1717  

15.13 

1764  

14.70 

1811  

15.53 

1858  

15.38 

1718  

15.11 

1765  

14.83 

1812  

16.11 

1859  

15.19 

1719  

15.09 

1766  

14.80 

1813  

16.25 

1860...... 

15.29 

1720  

15.04 

1767  

14.85 

1814  

15.04 

1861  

15.50 

1721  

15.05 

1768  

14.80 

1815  

15.26 

1862  

15.35 

1722  

15.17 

1769  

14.72 

1816  

15.28 

1863  

15.37 

1723 

15  20 

1770  

14.62 

1817  .. 

16.11 

1864  

15.37 

1724 

15.11 

1771  

14.66 

1818  

15.35 

1865  

15.44 

1725 

15.11 

1772  

14.52 

1819  

15.33 

1866  

15.43 

1726  

15.15 

1773  

14.62 

1820  

15.62 

1867  

15.57 

1727  

15.24 

1774  

14.62 

1821  

15.95 

1868  

15.59 

1728  

15.11 

1775  

14.72 

1822  

15.80 

1869  

15.60 

1729 

14.92 

1776  

1455 

1823 

15.84 

1870  

15.57 

1730 

14.81 

1777  

14  54 

1824  

15.82 

1871  

15.57 

1731. 

14.94 

1778  

14.68 

1825  

15.70 

1872  

15.63 

1732  

15.09 

1779  

14.80 

1826  

15.76 

1873  

15.92 

1733  

15.18 

1780  

14.72 

1827  

15.74 

SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


69 


From  1874  to  1878  the  ratios  were  as  follows: 
Commercial  ratio,  1874  to  1888. 


Year. 

Ratio. 

Year. 

Ratio. 

Year. 

Ratio. 

Year. 

Ratio. 

1874  

16.17 

1878 

17.94 

1882  

18.19 

1886 

20  78 

1875  

16.59 

1879 

18  40 

1883  

18.64 

1887  

21  13 

1876  

17.88 

1880  

18.05 

1884  

18.57 

1888 

21.99 

1877  

17.22 

1881  

18.16 

1885  

19.41 

These  ratios  have  widened  since  that  time,  with  the  exception 
of  a  brief  period  during  which  it  appeared  that  the  United  States 
intended  to  return  to  sensible  legislation  (an  ill-founded  assump 
tion,  I  am  sorry  to  say),  and  the  mere  rumor  that  we  intended  to 
do  so,  baseless  indeed,  though  it  was,  helped  silver  to  a  marked 
extent. 

Prof.  Francis  A.  Walker,  writing  in  1876  and  noting  the  slight 
and  unimportant  fluctuations  for  a  period  of  more  than  a  century 
preceding  1873,  uses  these  significant  words : 

That  the  changes  in  the  comparative  purchasing  power  of  the  two  metals 
between  1873  and  1876  were  wholly  or  mainly  due  to  the  changes  in  supply  or 
changes  in  demand  disconnected  from  the  acts  of  governments  dealing  with 
the  legal  relations  of  gold  and  silver  I  really  cannot  conceive  any  intelligent 
and  candid  man  is  now  maintaining. 

To  argue  any  further  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  silver 
was  holding  its  own  up  to  the  demonetization  of  1873  would  be 
violence  to  the  common  sense  of  the  Senate  and  the  country.  The 
tables  heretofore  referred  to  constitute  a  demonstration  of  the  cor 
rectness  of  this  proposition. 

Since  1873  the  fluctuation  so  often  mentioned  has  certainly  taken 
place  in  an  exceedingly  aggravated  form.  From  these  facts,  not 
susceptible,  I  take  it,  of  denial,  it  follows  that  silver  for  generations 
was  successfully  used  as  money  and  held  its  own  with  gold  and 
continued  to  do  this  until  the  United  States  demonetized  it.  If  the 
United  States  had  not  done  this  the  relative  situation  of  the  metals 
would  not  have  been  changed.  This  final  proposition  must  be  correct 
if  experience  is  worth  anything.  Nor  is  there  anything  unreasonable, 
independent  of  the  argument  based  upon  experience,  in  the  conclusion 
which  I  have  just  reached  that  when  England,  Germany,  and  other 
European  countries  declared  that  silver  was  not  worthy  of  con 
sideration  as  standard  money,  it  was  natural  that  the)  situation  should 
be  somewhat  perturbed.  But  when  the  United  States  adds  its  voice 
in  the  same  direction  and,  wholly  regardless  of  her  own  interests, 
announces  to  the  world  and  proclaims  from  housetops  of  civilization 
that  silver  is  worthless,  it  is  certain  that  the  usefulness  of  the  metal 
will  be  to  a  great  extent  impaired. 

If  I  should  circulate  a  rumor  that  the  real  property  that  the 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Finance  owns,  and  to  which  he  has 
good  title,  was  so  involved  as  to  render  it  impossible  for  him  to 
convey  the  fee,  and  if  this  assertion,  made  in  obvious  disregard  of 
the  truth  to  some  one  who  intended  to  purchase  that  property, 
influenced  the  latter  so  as  to  prevent  a  sale,  I  would  be  guilty 


70  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

of   slander   of  title;   an   action   could   be   maintained   against   me   to 
recover  damages  for  my  ill-advised  talk. 

This  right  of  action  is  given  upon  the  theory  that  men  are 
influenced  by  ungrounded  reports.  And  if  this  be  true  in  the  case 
of  an  individual,  how  much  more  potent  does  the  slander  become 
when  it  is  made  officially  by  a  great  nation;  when  it  is  made  not 
with  reference  to  the  property  of  another,  but  regarding  our  own 
product.  When  we  who  produce  silver  declare  against  silver,  when 
we  who  insist  in  our  political  platforms  that  bimetallism  is  desirable, 
inconsistently  print  upon  our  statute  books  the  declaration  that  we 
have  no  confidence  in  silver,  is  it  to  be  wondered  at  that  there  is 
lack  of  confidence  elsewhere  ?  Is  it  not  evidence  of  imbecility  to 
wonder  that  silver  should  be  discredited  when  we  have  thus  treated  it  ? 

Give  silver  a  chance.  Do  what  you  solemnly  said  you  would  do 
when  you  subscribed  to  your  party  platforms.  Put  it  upon  the  same 
basis  as  gold.  Treat  it  as  fairly  as  gold.  Give  it  an  equally  honor 
able  place  at  the  governmental  table,  and  see  that  a  fair  portion  of 
the  choicest  legislative  viands  is  allotted  to  the  white  metal.  The 
man  who  is  so  treated  that  starvation  threatens  him,  finds  m>  diffi 
culty  in  assigning  a  reason  for  the  difference  in  physical  develop 
ment  manifest  as  between  himself  and  one  who  has  been  well  fed. 
Act  toward  gold  as  you  have  acted  towards  silver,  and  a  large  portion 
of  our  most  distinguished  inhabitants  would  demand  the  demonetiza 
tion  of  the  former.  Let  us  be  consistent;  let  us  be  reasonable;  let 
us  be  liberal ;  let  us  act  in  good  faith. 

When  our  Government  speaks  discreditably  of  silver  the  state 
ment  excites  more  than  common  attention.  It  is  said  of  us  that  our 
interests  should  naturally  be  for  silver,  as  we  produce  large  quantities 
of  that  metal,  and  that  therefore  we  are  very  much  in  the  same 
attitude  as  a  suitor  whose  expressions  adverse  to  his  own  interests 
are  proven  with  telling  effect  by  his  opponent. 

It  has  been  argued  that  many  Senators  upon  other  occasions 
called  attention  to  India  as  a  silver  consumer,  and  contended  that 
because  of  our  large  absorption  we  could  afford  to  go  to  free  coinage, 
but  that  now,  this  argument  being  taken  away,  the  case  falls. 

I  think  it  has  been  shown  with  sufficient  clearness  that  there  is 
not  an  extravagant  quantity  of  silver  in  the  world;  that  there  is 
not  enough  to  destroy  parity;  and  that  while  the  absorption  of  sil 
ver  in  India  furnished  an  argument  on  the  silver  side  of  the  ques 
tion,  its  elimination  does  not  justify  the  conclusion  that  we  should 
do  our  utmost  to  destroy  the  purchasing  power  of  a  metal  of  which 
we  produce  so  much.  It  has  been  demonstrated  that  until  we  made 
the  most  vicious  attack  possible  on  silver,  it  took  good  care  of  itself, 
and  there  is  not  a  man  in  the  country  who  has  any  right  to  assume 
that  silver  will  not  be  self-sustaining  if  Congress  restores  it  to  the 
position  which  it  occupied  in  1873,  in  which  position  it  maintained 
itself  without  difficulty. 

Besides,  we  have  the  authority  of  the  Senator  from  Iowa  [Mr. 
ALLISON]  that  England  will  be  forced  to  restore  silver  in  India,  and 
the  indications  go  far  to  sustain  his  anticipation. 

It  is  claimed  that  if  we  have  free  coinage  our  silver  must  all 
leave  the  country.  It  has  been  well  remarked  that  this  metal  can 
not  leave  us  unless  we  receive  an  equivalent.  A  few  days  ago  a 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  71 

Senator  who  advocates  the  gold  standard  declared  that  he  did  not 
mean  to  say  that  gold  would  in  such  an  event  be  withdrawn  from 
the  country,  but  that  it  would  be  withdrawn  from  circulation. 
Says  an  English  writer: 

If  a  gold  coin  could  be  exchanged  for  a  heavier  weight  of  silver  coins  in  one 
country  than  another,  gold  would  be  sent  there  to  buy  up  the  heavier  silver 
coins.  This  very  mistake  was  made  at  the  English  mint  before  the  year  1698, 
so  gold  came  from  other  countries  to  buy  up  the  heavy  English  silver  coins, 
and  in  spite  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  teaching  to  the  contrary,  people  generally 
supposed  that  the  gold  came  of  itself  through  greater  suitability;  conse 
quently  it  was  pronounced  to  be  the  fittest  for  coinage,  and  was  decreed  in 
1816  to  be  alone  fit  for  unlimited  coinage,  silver  being  banished,  except  for 
small  payments  under  40  shillings. 

Even  Sir  Thomas  Gresham  never  pretended  that  one  metal 
would  drive  out  another.  He  did  say  that  the  inferior  would  drive 
out  the  superior  if  they  were  allowed  to  circulate  together.  He 
was  led  to  make  this  remark  because  of  the  currency  of  light  and 
full  weight  coins.  Prof.  Jevons  says : 

Gresham's  remarks  concerning  the  inability  of  good  money  to  drive  out 
bad  only  referred  to  money's  of  one  kind  of  metal. 

It  is  untrue  that  because  coins  of  a  certain  metal  depart  from 
a  particular  country  that  that  fact  proves  that  the  coin  withdrawn 
is  superior. 

It  is  said  that  if  we  have  silver  only  we  will  be  involved  beyond 
redemption.  When  we  had  a  sole  gold  currency,  owing  to  the 
fact  that  silver  was  dearer,  ruin  did  not  appear  imminent.  Sensible 
men  paid  no  attention  to  the  often-heard  remark  that  we  would  become 
bankrupt  if  we  allowed  the  free  coinage  of  gold,  because  it  was  cheaper 
than  silver.  The  subject  was,  however,  discussed. 

Thirty  years  ago  the  Illustrated  London  News  reported  certain 
proceedings  of  the  British  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Sci 
ence.  Among  other  interesting  matter  the  following  is  given : 

Mr.  H.  Fawcett  read  a  paper  "On  the  Effects  of  the  Recent  Gold  Discov 
eries,"  which  attracted  considerable  attention,  and  led  to  a  very  animated  dis 
cussion.  Mr.  Fawcett  reckons  that  the  amount  of  our  whole  existing  gold 
currency  is  £300,000,000.  The  next  ten  years  will  introduce  £200,000,000  of 
fresh  gold  from  Australia,  California,  and  other  quarters.  He  subtracts  from 
this  latter  amount  £60,000,000,  which  he  sacrifices  to  "  absorption."  This  leaves 
£140,000,000  as  the  addition  to  our  gold  currency  in  ten  years'  time.  But  gold 
is  depreciated  and  lessened  in  value  according  to  its  abundance.  Did  it 
promise,  then,  to  be  twice  as  abundant  at  the  end  of  ten  years  as  it  is  now, 
it  would  threaten  the  loss  of  half  its  present  value,  and  therefore  promising, 
as  it  does,  an  addition  of  nearly  a  fourth  to  its  present  amount  at  the  end 
of  that  period,  it  threatens  a  loss  by  that  time  of  nearly  one-fourth  of  its  pres 
ent  value.  Mr.  Fawcett  thinks  this  depreciation  sufficiently  probable  to  induce 
any  prudent  person  to  take  every  precaution  to  obviate  its  consequences. 

Mr.  Fawcett  followed  the  line  of  argument  adopted  by  present 
advocates  of  the  gold  standard,  but  no  one  paid  great  attention  to  him. 

But  I  do  not  believe  that  with  proper  legislation  there  is  any  dan 
ger  that  gold  and  silver  will  be  at  variance  at  the  ratio  of  16  to  i. 
If  we  will  desist  from  our  own  onslaughts  upon  silver  the  world  will 
do  likewise.  We  can  not  get  all  the  silver  of  the  world  if  we  desired 


72  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

it.     Without  some  silver  even  the  gold-standard  countries  would  find 
themselves  in  peril. 

We  certainly  will  not  give  our  gold  to  any  one ;  we  can  make  good 
bargains  as  well  as  others. 

But  all  the  silver  of  the  world  could  not  be  thrown  upon  the 
American  market  without  bringing  other  nations  to  a  standstill.  It  is 
admitted  that  a  vast  quantity  of  silver  is  needed  everywhere.  It  is 
conceded  that  there  is  not  enough  of  gold  in  the  world  to  go  around. 
Does  any  one  suppose  that  France  would  yield  up  her  immense  stock 
of  silver  ?  She  could  not  replace  it  with  gold,  for  there  is  no  gold  to 
replace  it.  If  our  silver  supply  was  augmented  by  remonetization, 
such  increased  amount  would  be  readily  absorbed  and  would  constitute 
no  menace  to  our  business  integrity. 

But,  Mr.  President,  as  I  have  already  repeatedly  urged,  as  soon 
as  silver  is  treated  properly  there  will  be  no  object  in  attempting  to 
capture  silver  or  to  capture  gold. 

The  assertion  that  silver  is  too  bulky  for  use  is  not  worthy  of 
much  consideration.  I  do  not  find  many  people  in  this  part  of  the 
world  carrying  double  eagles  in  their  pockets.  I  think  it  probable  that 
a  very  large  portion  of  my  Eastern  friends  who  are  so  wild  upon  the 
subject  of  gold  would  not  know  gold  if  they  saw  it.  In  California  we 
know  something  of  gold  because  we  handle  it. 

A  few  years  ago,  upon  the  occasion  of  my  first  visit  to  the  East 
ern  portion  of  the  United  States,  I  came  to  Washington  sightseeing. 
I  then  had  some  ambition  to  come  here  in  an  official  capacity,  and  en 
tertaining  the  idea  that  no  one  couIH  be  really  capable  of  participating 
in  the  affairs  of  his  Government  intelligently  unless  he  had  to  some 
extent  familiarized  himself  by  actual  observation  with  the  necessities 
and  peculiarities  of  each  State,  I  traveled  from  State  to  State  on  a 
tour  of  observation,  and  having  a  small  supply  of  gold  on  hand,  I  went 
to  a  Washington  theater  with  some  friends  and  presented  a  newly 
coined  twenty-dollar  piece  at  the  box  office.  The  young  man  in 
charge,  who  was  a  New  Yorker,  and  violently  in  favor  of  the  single 
standard  gold,  looked  at  the  piece  critically  and  told  me  he  would 
rather  not  take  it.  I  told  him  that  it  was  gold,  and  he  called  in 
Attaches  of  the  office,  and  finally  the  general  manager,  and  after 
extended  deliberation,  my  twenty-dollar 'piece  was  accepted.  I  do  not 
believe  that  it  would  have  been  taken  had  it  not  been  that  I  twitted 
them  upon  the  inconsistency  of  Eastern  people  with  reference  to  gold 
and  silver,  and  while  I  was  engaged  in  utilizing  my  diplomatic  powers, 
I  noticed  other  amusement  seekers  buying  tickets  and  paying  silver 
without  objection.  It  is  just  as  unnecessary  to  lug  silver  around  as  it 
is  to  take  gold  about.  Silver  certificates  weigh  no  more  than  gold 
certificates.  The  balance  of  my  gold  supply  I  found  it  hard  to  get  rid 
of.  There  was  a  lack  of  confidence  in  gold. 

I  certainly  feel  justified  in  saying  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
proposition  that  silver  is  too  bulky.  In  the  great  commercial  trans 
actions  to  which  gentlemen  have  alluded  neither  metal  is  actually 
present,  and  in  smaller  affairs  of  business  currency  is  uniformly  util 
ized  ;  and  whatever  may  be  the  legislation  upon  the  subject,  it  will  not 
be  difficult  to  avoid  actually  handling  large  quantities  of  either  metal. 
At  this  point  I  desire  to  say  a  Word  with  reference  to  a  policy 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  73 

which  this  Government  adopted  some  time  ago,  and  which,  it  appears 
to  me,  was  wholly  uncalled  for. 

I  refer  to  our  practice  as  to  the  redemption  of  bonds  payable  in 
coin. 

I  believe  in  paying  our  creditors  all  that  we  owe  them  and  paying 
them  in  the  money  designated  in  the  bond.  But  when  this  Govern 
ment,  owing  money  payable  in  coin  —  payable,  in  other  words,  in  that 
coin  designated  by  the  Constitution  and  described  therein  as  gold  and 
silver,  refused  to  pay  silver,  but  did  pay  gold  because  the  creditors 
preferred  it,  a  great  mistake,  if  not  a  crime,  was  committed.  In  all 
private  transactions  it  has  universally  been  admitted  that  where  coin 
is  called  for  that  either  metal  will  satisfy  the  obligation.  Such  was 
the  law  known  by  all  parties  when  bonds  were  issued.  With  reference 
to  the  greenback  matter  which  has  been  spoken  of,  no  one  ever  pre 
tended  that  anyone  who  entered  into  a  contract  after  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  and  after  greenbacks  wtere 
declared  to  be  currency,  providing  for  payment  in  lawful  money,  could 
not  satisfy  the  indebtedness  with  greenbacks. 

The  proposition  sustained  in  the  greenback  cases,  which  excited 
so  much  comment  and  such  an  amount  of  adverse  criticism,  was  that 
one  who  entered  into  a  contract  involving  a  money  promise  prior  to 
the  issuance  of  the  greenback  could  be  forced  to  accept  currency 
unknown  when  the  agreement  was  made.  No  court  ever  held  to  the 
view  which  the  Secretaries  of  the  Treasury  seem  to  have  uni 
formly  followed,  that  our  coin  indebtedness  should  be  paid  in  gold 
only.  What  right  have  the  bondholders  of  this  country  ever  had  to 
ask  for  the  enforcement  of  a  condition  undisclosed  in  their  contract? 
May  they  plead  ignorance  of  the  law?  Such  a  plea  is  not  tenable. 
Were  they  deceived  by  any  mistake  of  fact?  Obviously  not.  They 
knew  the  Constitution  of  this  country  just  as  well  as  we  know  it,  and 
they  knew  when  they  insisted  upon  gold  payments  that  they  were  not 
entitled  to  the  same.  They  knew  the  attendant  circumstances  fully. 
But  they  have  procured  various  Administrations  to  ignore  the  interests 
of  the  people,  that  the  feelings  of  the  bondholder  may  not  be  hurt. 
These  men  have  been  more  exacting  than  Shylock.  He  demanded  the 
letter  of  his  bond ;  he  asked  for  nothing  else.  He  wished  a  pound  of 
flesh  close  to  the  heart.  Had  the  modern  bondholder  been  in  his  place 
he  would  have  demanded  the  heart  itself. 

Legally  as  well  as  morally  the  United  States  Government  erred 
when  it  paid  out  gold  when  its  promise  would  have  been  satisfied  by 
the  payment  of  silver.  It  is  well  known  that  the  bondholders  have 
always  bitterly  opposed  free  coinage.  They  were  especially  active 
when  the  Bland  act  was  passed.  That  measure  was  not  congenial  to 
any  of  the  silver  men.  Mr.  Bland  said  when  he  was  compelled  to 
accept  it: 

I  say,  I  protest  against  this  bill  while  I  vote  for  it  under  that  protest.  I 
want,  in  this  House,  to  give  notice  and  the  understanding  to  go  forth  that 
this  is  no  compromise  and  no  settlement.  It  is  not  what  the  country  expects 
or  desires,  but  we  vote  for  it  now  to  secure  what  we  can  at  this  time,  intending 
to  continue  the  necessary  legislation  hereafter. 

Although  the  bondholders  did  not  obtain  the  exact  legislation 
which  they  desired,  still  they  made  an  enormous  profit  out  of  the  work 
as  it  was  done.  The  loss  to  the  Government  has  been  immense. 

6 


74  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Between  1862  and  1868,  it  is  stated  upon  reliable  authority  that  the 
United  States  marketed  bonds  to  the  value  of  $2,049,975,700  and  only 
obtained  from  those  who  took  these  bonds  up  $1,371,424,238.  So  the 
bondholders  were  not  very  badly  treated.  They  do  not  belong  to  the 
injured  innocent  class. 

Thus  we  again  discredited  silver.  We  manifested  our  want  of 
faith  in  its  debt-paying  power  when  we  permitted  those  whose 
indebtedness  could  have  been  legally  and  morally  satisfied  by  the  pay 
ment  of  silver  to  take  gold  from  our  Treasury. 

I  presume  Senators  will  yet  be  found  who  will  still  say  that  we 
have  treated  silver  as  we  have  treated  gold.  One  of  the  most  dis 
astrous  consequences  of  this  mistaken  policy  consists  in  the  establish 
ment  of  a  rule  from  which  it  is  difficult  to  depart. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.     Will  the  Senator  pardon  a  single  question? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     Certainly. 

Mr.  HAWLEY.  Did  not  California  and  the  whole  coast  there 
make  exactly  such  bonds?  Did  they  not  keep  themselves  on  a  gold 
basis  during  the  whole  war,  and  ever  since? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  am  glad  that  the  Senator  has  men 
tioned  this,  because  I  can  show  the  utter  want  of  resemblance  between 
the  situation  to  which  he  refers  and  that  which  I  am  considering. 
We  made  contracts  in  gold  for  the  reasons  I  have  stated,  and  we  paid 
them  in  gold  because  we  agreed  in  terms  to  do  so ;  but  when  we  made 
a  contract  payable  in  lawful  money  of  the  United  States  we  paid  it  in 
lawful  money,  the  debtor  determining  the  kind  of  lawful  money.  We 
never  permitted  the  creditor  who  had  entered  into  a  contract  with  us 
which  was  by  its  terms  to  be  satisfied  by  payment  "in  coin"  to  dictate 
the  character  of  coin  that  we  shall  give  him,  and  we  have  never  known 
an  instance  of  anyone  having  the  audacity  to  make  such  a  demand. 

I  have  said,  Mr.  President,  that  our  own  legislation  is  responsi 
ble  for  much  of  our  present  trouble.  I  find  in  support  of  my  position 
a  letter  quoted  as  having  been  written  by  the  senior  Senator  from  Ohio 
[Mr.  SHERMAN].  I  know  nothing  as  to  its  authenticity  except  that  I 
find  it  in  a  respectable  paper  and  I  assume  it  is  correct.  I  will  read  it. 
It  was  written  in  1868,  regarding  the  question  of  which  I  am  now 
speaking.  It  is  said  to  have  been  received  by  Hon.  A.  Mann,  of 
Brooklyn  Heights,  N.  Y. : 

DEAR  SIR  :  I  was  pleased  to  receive  your  letter.  My  personal  interests  are 
the  same  as  yours,  but,  like  you,  I  do  not  intend  to  be  influenced  by  them. 
My  construction  of  the  law  is  the  result  of  careful  examination,  and  I  feel 
quite  sure  an  impartial  court  would  confirm  it  if  the  case  could  be  tried 
before  a  court.  I  send  you  my  views  as  fully  stated  in  a  speech.  Your  idea 
is  that  we  propose  to  repudiate  or  violate  a  promise  when  wre  offer  to  redeem 
the  principal  in  legal  tenders. 

I  think  the  bondholder  violates  his  promise  when  he  refuses  to  take  the 
same  kind  of  money  he  paid  for  the  bonds.  If  the  case  is  to  be  tested  by  the 
law,  I  am  right ;  if  it  is  to  be  tested  by  Jay  Cooke's  advertisements,  I  am 
wrong.  I  hate  repudiation  or  anything  like  it,  but  we  ought  not  to  be  deterred 
from  doing  what  is  right  by  the  fear  of  undeserved  epithets.  If,  under  the 
law  as  it  stands,  the  holders  of  the  five-twenties  can  only  be  paid  in  gold, 
then  we  are  repudiators  if  we  propose  to  pay  otherwise.  If  the  bondholder 
can  legally  demand  only  the  kind  of  money  he  paid,  then  he  is  a  repudiator 
and  extortioner  to  demand  money  more  valuable  than  he  gave. 

Truly  yours, 

JOHN  SHERMAN. 


SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  75 

I  have  collected,  or  rather  there  has  been  collected  by  Mr.  Young, 
whom  I  before  quoted,  and  published  in  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle, 
excerpts  from  a  debate  which  was  had  in  this  Chamber,  together  with 
remarks  thereon,  which  I  adopt.  It  reads  thus : 

Not  only  did  the  monometallists  in  the  Senate  betray  their  tender  consid 
erations  for  the  bondholder  by  insisting  that  he  should  receive  payment  in  a 
dollar  not  used  by  the  common  people,  but  being  beaten  on  that  point  they 
attempted  to  secure  for  him  a  silver  dollar  containing  about  42  grains  more 
than  the  dollar  they  would  have  cheerfully  given  to  the  people.  After  roundly 
denouncing  the  silver  dollar  of  412^  grains  as  a  cumbrous  and  undesirable 
coin  various  monometallist  Senators  proposed  amendments  to  increase  lits 
weight.  Senator  MORRILL  of  Vermont,  for  instance,  proposed  a  dollar  of  454 
grains  and  antagonized  the  adoption  of  an  amendment  offered  by  Booth,  which 
was  subsequently  incorporated  in  the  bill.  Mr.  Booth,  explaining  the  amend 
ment,  said: 

"  It  is  constantly  objected  that  silver  is  not  a  proper  material  of  which  to 
make  money  because  it  is  too  cumbersome;  but  certificates  of  deposit  for  silver 
will  circulate  just  as  freely  as  certificates  of  deposit  for  gold,  and  just  as 
easily.  And  in  reply  to  the  suggestion  of  the  Senator  from  Maryland  [Mr. 
WHYTE]  allow  me  to  say  that  this  section  is  copied  substantially  from  the 
section  of  the  existing  law  which  allows  deposits  of  gold  and  makes  the 
United  States  the  safe  depository  for  gold  on  the  same  terms  that  this  proposes 
to  make  it  for  silver." 

Senator  Blaine,  whose  attitude  on  the  bill  was  on  the  whole  against  bimet 
allism,  was  too  logical  to  oppose  Booth's  amendment,  and  in  the  course  of 
the  debate  took  occasion  to  express  his  approval  of  the  silver  certificate  plan. 
He  was  interrupted  when  speaking,  and  the  following  colloquy  ensued : 

"  MR.  MORRILL.  May  I  ask  the  Senator  from  Maine  if  he  does  not  consider 
it  (proposition  to  issue  silver  certificates)  a  confession  that  silver  is  a  cum 
brous  and  inconvenient  article  to  carry,  and  that  this  is  a  mode  to  obviate  it? 

"  MR.  BLAINE.     Not  at  all. 

"MR.  MORRILL.    A  mode  of  getting  paper  instead? 

"  MR.  BLAINE.  No  more  than  it  is  as  to  gold.  You  do  that  for  gold  today. 
You  give  exactly  the  same  certificate  for  gold.  J 

"MR.  BOOTH.  It  is  seldom  I  intrude  upon  the  Senate,  but  the  junior  Senator 
from  Vermont  [Mr.  MORRILL],  if  I  am  right,  is  in  favor  of  a  very  heavy  silver 
dollar.  He  favors  a  dollar  of  454  grains." 

The  amendment,  which  reads  as  follows,  was  opposed  by  every  gold  advo 
cate  in  the  Senate  and  almost  unanimously  accepted  by  the  advocates  of 
remonetization.  We  give  it  place  here  and  lay  stress  upon  it  because  there  are 
in  California  alleged  friends  of  silver  who  are  constantly  asserting  that  the 
standard  dollar  will  not  circulate  and  are  lying  idle  in  the  Treasury,  in  willful 
disregard  of  the  fact  that  there  are  certificates  outstanding  against  nearly  every 
dollar  of  silver  reposing  in  the  Government  vaults : 

"That  any  holder  of  the  coin  authorized  by  this  act  may  deposit  the 
same  with  the  Treasurer  or  any  assistant  treasurer  of  the  United  States  in 
sums  of  not  less  than  $10  and  receive  therefor  certificates  of  not  less  than 
$10  each,  corresponding  with  the  denominations  of  the  United  States  notes. 
The  coin  deposited  for  or  representing  the  certificates  shall  be  retained  in 
the  Treasury  for  the  payment  of  the  same  on  demand.  Said  certificates  shall 
be  receivable  for  customs,  taxes,  and  all  public  dues,  and  when  so  received 
may  be  reissued." 

Mr.  MORRILL,  who  had  at  one  stage  of  the  proceedings  denounced  the 
silver  dollar  of  412^  grains  as  cumbrous  and  undesirable,  and  who  rather 
inconsistently  proposed  to  increase  its  weight  to  454  grains,  instead  of  accept 
ing  his  defeat  gracefully,  proposed  the  following  amendment : 

"And  provided  further,  That  for  any  amount  of  silver  dollars  which  may 
be  issued  under  this  act  there  shall  be  reserved  and  cancelled  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  an  equal  amount  of  United  States  notes  of  denominations  less 
than  $5." 

Mr.  MORRILL  stated  that  the  object  of  his  amendment  was  to  get  the  silver 
dollar  into  circulation,  but  the  Senate  recognized  the  fact  that  its  purpose  was 


76  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

to  contract  the  currency,  or  at  least  prevent  its  expansion  by  retiring  legal- 
tender  dollars  as  rapidly  as  standard  silver  dollars  were  coined.  The  Senate 
promptly  rejected  the  amendment,  all  of  the  gold  men  voting  for  it. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  said  that  I  did  not  intend  to  wage  war  upon 
any  class ;  and  the  criticisms  which  I  have  made  and  shall  make,  are 
not  directed  at  those  who  carry  on  any  particular  business,  unless 
they  come  within  the  statement  which  I  present. 

In  the  queen  city  of  the  Empire  state — a  city  which  largely  influ 
ences  the  affairs  of  this  Republic  and  to  some  extent  controls  its  des 
tiny — there  are  to  be  found  in  proportion  to  population  as  many  able 
and  patriotic  men  and  women  as  can  be  encountered  elsewhere ;  and 
it  is  probable  that  the  proportion  of  wealthy  men  who  are  otherwise 
than  as  they  should  be,  is  not  greater  there  than  in  other  portions 
of  the  country. 

When  the  nation  was  in  peril,  when  she  was  threatened  with 
dismemberment,  the  brave  men  of  New  York  did  more  than  utter 
patriotic  expressions.  Their  state  contributed  to  the  cause  of  the  Union 
her  full  quota  and  made  a  record  for  valor  and  leadership  second  to 
none.  Still,  it  is  undeniable  that  there  are  within  that  busy  city  a 
number  of  immensely  affluent  people  who,  while  expressing  much 
solicitude  for  the  laborer  and  farmer,  and  while  hoping  that  every 
man  will  get  an  honest  dollar,  and  that  the  poor  may  be  clothed  and 
fed,  do  not  act  as  if  they  were  sincere  in  their  professions.  We 
have  been  informed,  and  the  statement  is  no  doubt  true,  that  during 
the  panic  thousands  of  depositors  were  unpaid,  and  the  reason  given 
for  this  non-payment  was  the  inability  of  those  who  held  the  money 
to  meet  their  obligations ;  and  thus  national  bank  after  national  bank 
committed  admitted  acts  of  bankruptcy. 

It  has  been  demonstrated  that  at  that  period  there  were  in  the 
vaults  of  those  institutions  an  enormous  amount  of  money  which 
would  have  done  much  to  alleviate  the  suffering  which  prevailed  in 
New  York. 

No  one  will  charge  the  New  York  World  with  partiality  in  favor 
of  silver  people.  No  one  will  say  that  that  journal  attempted  to 
raise  a  commotion  or  create  feeling  against  the  moneyed  interests  of 
the  metropolis.  Yet  I  learn  from  that  paper  that  there  were  thou 
sands  of  people  of  that  great  city  out  of  employment  and  hundreds 
needing  bread.  I  quote  the  following  from  the  World  of  the  6th. 

"THE  BREAD  GAVE  OUT/' 

For  two  days  this  cry  has  ended  the  story  of  the  distribution  of  The  World's 
Free  Bread  Fund. 

After  9,000  had  been  fed  the  door  was  reluctantly  shut  in  the  faces  of  500 
hungry  poor. 

This  should  not  be  permitted  to  happen  again.  It  is  a  pity,  and  if  continued 
it  would  be  a  shame  for  any  to  be  turned  away  empty-handed  who  ask  only 
a  loaf  of  bread. 

Five  hundred  dollars  will  feed  10,000  people.  In  this  city  of  luxury  and 
liberality  that  small  sum  daily  surely  should  not  be  lacking. 

The  contributions  from  the  benefit  performance  to-morrow  by  star  actors  — 
always  quick  in  sympathy  and  prompt  in  charity  —  will  give  the  fund  a  lift. 
But  the  individual  subscriptions  ought  not  to  slacken. 

With  the  improvement  of  the  times  the  need  is  likely  to  diminish.  While 
it  lasts  it  must  be  met. 

I  lately  noticed  two  illustrations  in  that  paper  which,  blended, 
represented  the  following:  There  was  a  miserable  hovel.  The  walls 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  77 

were  apparently  broken.  Mould  oozed  through  the  cracks ;  the  floor 
seemed  ill-suited  to  the  use  made  of  it.  In  one  corner  was  a  bed 
scarcely  competent  to  maintain  its  burden,  and  upon  it  was  stretched 
a  miserably  covered  woman.  Her  despairing  countenance  told  the  sad 
story  of  hunger  unappeased.  The  skin  seemed  to  be  drawn  tightly 
and  closely  to  her  frame.  Not  old,  she  was  worn  from  suffering. 
Her  hands  were  clasped  upon  her  breast,  from  which  an  infant  then 
crying  upon  the  floor,  had  drawn  almost  the  last  drop  of  her  life.  Her 
glassy  eyes  were  turned  upward  in  mute  appeal  for  that  justice  which 
had  never  been  awarded  her  here.  Near  the  door  stood  a  man  poorly 
clad.  Upon  his  cheek  there  was  a  tear.  He  looked  in  bitter  anguish 
upon  his  suffering  family.  The  artist  had  written  across  his  breast  the 
words,  "No  work."  Near  the  bed  paused  a  girl,  perhaps  14  or  15 
years  of  age.  Her  face  was  that  of  a  woman,  and  she  was  obviously 
thoroughly  conscious  of  the  terrible  character  of  her  situation.  A 
toddling  boy  weeping,  embraced  his  father's  leg,  and  looking  up  into 
his  parent's  face  seemed  to  say,  "I  want  something  to  eat." 

The  reporter  who  saw  all  this  passed  perhaps  several  blocks  away 
from  the  sad  scene  and  there  encountered  a  magnificent  mansion. 
He  delayed,  responsive  to  the  enchantment  of  music. 

There  was  a  sound  of  revelry  by  night. 

Had  he  looked  beyond  the  externals  of  this  grand  abode,  he  would 
have  beheld  all  the  splendor  and  delight  of  a  New  York  financier's 
home.  He  would  have  noticed  beautiful  women  in  gorgeous  attire, 
attractive  and  attracted.  He  would  have  seen  costly  furnishings  before 
which  the  fabled  glories  of  antiquity  would  have  seemed  as  nothing, 
liveried  servants  parading  in  styles  borrowed  from  insolvent  lords 
and  barons.  Perhaps  the  proprietor  of  this  palace,  the  gentleman  who 
thus  entertained  his  friends,  is  one  of  those  who  has  urged  his  news 
paper  representatives  to  attack  this  Senate  upon  the  ground  that  the 
repeal  of  the  Sherman  law  would  make  the  poor  happy.  Perhaps  he 
has  closed  his  bank  and  refused  to  pay  a  dollar  to  his  depositors.  Per 
haps  he  is  one  of  those  who  have  determined  to  create  misery  that 
Congress  may  come  to  time. 

During  the  enactment  of  all  these  bewildering  scenes,  and  while 
these  very  variant  circumstances  are  displayed  behind  the  curtain  of 
life  which  I  have  sought  to  lift,  we  are  told  by  the  New  York  World 
that  it  has  been  difficult  in  that  center  of  enlightenment  and  worth 
to  secure  enough  money  to  supply  the  poor  with  loaves  of  bread.  And 
mid  these  happenings  in  the  great  harbor  of  New  York,  with  face 
turned  toward  the  sea,  seeming  to  look  over  the  ocean,  upon  which 
ride,  and  must  for  ages  ride,  the  ships  of  civilization,  freighted  with 
the  mighty  wealth  that  commerce  moves,  stands  a  colossal  statue,  pre 
sented  to  this  Republic  in  token  of  her  superiority  and  as  proof  of  her 
right  to  claim  pre-eminence  in  the  councils  of  freedom:  In  its  right 
hand  that  statue  holds,  extended  far  above  its  massive  front,  a  brilliant 
and  flashing  torch — it  is  Liberty  enlightening  the  world ! 

But  those  of  whom  I  am  treating  otherwise  than  in  praise,  un 
fortunately  exert  or  have  exerted  a  vast  influence  upon  the  affairs  of 
this  country.  There  has  never  been  a  time  of  monetary  stringency 
when  they  have  not  pinched  this  Government.  They  have  dared  to  use 
the  National  Treasury  for  their  personal  aggrandizement.  Not  only 


78  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

that,  but  they  assume  to  control  the  policy  of  the  Government  where 
financial  affairs  are  in  any  wise  concerned.  As  citizens  of  the  United 
States  they  have  a  right  to  express  their  views  and  criticise  their  public 
officers,  and  to  this  no  sensible  man  will  object.  But  they  do  not, 
either  in  fact  or  in  theory,  thus  limit  themselves.  They  wish  to  rule 
and  desire  that  those  who  ought  to  be  the  servants  of  the  people  shall 
be  their  servants  only. 

To  illustrate  the  peculiar  tendencies  of  this  class  I  will  call  atten 
tion  to  the  remarks  of  one  of  the  wealthiest  men  who  has  ever  been 
in  our  country,  and  who  was  called  upon  two  or  three  years  back 
to  give  such  information  as  he  possessed  concerning  certain  com 
binations  and  stock  operations  supposed  to  be  injurious  to  the  public. 
After  those  who  were  examining  him  had  made  several  suggestions 
and  had  interrogated  him  as  to  whether  in  his  judgment  some  of  his 
dealings  were  not  contrary  to  public  policy,  he  said  with  some  asperity 
in  substance:  "If  these  things  that  I  do  are  against  public  policy  and 
wrong,  why  do  you  not  make  your  laws  so  as  to  prevent  me  from 
accomplishing  them?  As  long  as  your  laws  are  as  they  are  I  will  act 
as  I  have  acted." 

The  expression  "your  laws"  impressed  me  as  exceedingly  sig 
nificant.  This  man  was  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  was  supposed 
to  exert  much  influence  upon  our  elections  because  of  his  unlimited 
means,  and  yet  he  said  ''your  laws,"  indicating  that  he  considered  him 
self  without  the  pale  of  Republican  fraternity.  Then  his  remark,  that 
he  would  act  as  he  had  acted  until  prevented  by  punitive  legislation, 
amounted  to  saying  that  his  deeds  could  not  be  controlled  by  anything 
binding  only  in  the  forum  of  his  conscience.  Nothing  but  a  penal  en- 
actmtnt  could  hold  him  to  moral  rectitude.  His  attitude  was  indeed 
piratical.  While  he  did  not  sail  upon  the  ocean  flying  the  black  flag, 
the  platform  upon  which  he  thus  stood,  the  sentiments  he  thus  an- 
noiriced,  and  the  course  of  conduct  he  pursued  justified  the  assertion 
that  he  was  hostis  hutnani  generis. 

Tn  the  present  controversy  we  have  familiar  instances  of  similar 
arrogance.  A  few  days  ago  a  New  York  dispatch  announced  that  a 
prominent  banker  had  been  waited  on  by  a  reporter  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  his  views  with  reference  to  a  rumored  conversation  said  to 
have  taken  place  between  the  President,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
and  other  officials  concerning  the  State-bank  tax.  The  reporter  asked 
this  Wall  street  financier  his  opinion  of  the  proposed  measure. 
"Well."  said  the  latter,  "I  have  not  examined  the  proposition  very 
closely,  but  do  not  think  I  would  like  it.  However,  there  need  not  be 
any  solicitude,  because  the  Administration  will  not  pass  any  financial 
legislation  without  consulting  us ;  hence  there  need  be  no  anxiety  upon 
the  part  of  the  public  regarding  the  subject." 

Another  Wall  street  man  was  also  reported  as  having  been  inter 
viewed,  and  he  expressed  himself  in  much  the  same  way ;  adding,  how 
ever,  that  the  country  would  never  be  satisfied  with  any  bill  that  did 
not  meet  approval  of  the  fraternity  to  which  he  belonged.  Such  men 
claim  to  know  the  sentiment  of  the  people. 

A  telegram  in  the  Washington  Post  of  Monday  tells  us  that  cer 
tain  bankers  in  New  York  City  have  censured  the  chairman  of  the 
Finance  Committee  because  he  has  yielded  too  much  to  the  silver 
men,  and  the  chairman  is  spoken  of  in  anything  but  complimentary 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  79 

teims.  His  censors  declare  that  he  is  unfit  for  the  position  that  he 
occupies  because  he  has  made  concessions.  The  same  paper  also  an 
nounces  that  the  Senator  from  Indiana  acted  wrongfully  in  "refusing 
to  consult  us." 

I  have  no  doubt  but  that  if  such  a  request  was  made,  the  chairman 
of  the  Finance  Committee  would  refuse  to  pay  any  attention  to  it. 
I  know  that  he  would  much  rather  consult  a  gathering  of  farmers 
residing  at  a  point  distant  from  this  capitol  and  who  are  unable  to 
come  here,  than  to  visit  the  New  York  magnates  who  are  now 
attempting  to  dictate  to  him.  These  people  do  not  appreciate  the  situ 
ation  or  dignity  of  the  man  whom  they  assail — the  chairman  of  the 
committee  which  at  this  juncture  is  the  most  important  of  this  body; 
a  man  who  has  served  in  the  Congress  of  his  country  for  a  large  por 
tion  of  a  generation ;  who  has  had  the  confidence  of  his  constituents 
and  of  the  public ;  who  has  labored  thus  long  and  earnestly,  sacrificing 
numerous  opportunities  for  advancing  his  fortune,  and  above  all  a 
Senator  of  the  United  States  whose  obligation  to  the  people  is  para 
mount  to  his  duty  to  any  individual. 

This  man  is  abused  because  he  will  not  take  his  gospel  from  men 
whom  he  has  justly  criticised  and  for  whom  he  has  properly  expressed 
his  contempt  for  these  many  years,  and  regarding  whom  in  his  opening 
speech  he  told  many  truths,  most  unpalatable,  no  doubt,  to  them.  Nor 
do  they  appreciate  that  the  Senator  from  Indiana  has  been  placed  in 
an  attitude  which  cannot  be  agreeable  to  him,  because  he  is  antagoniz 
ing  the  views  of  a  large  number  of  gentlemen  whose  opinions  upon  the 
real  merits  of  the  silver  question  do  not  differ  from  those  which  he  has 
long  entertained,  and  vigorously  and  eloquently  championed.  If  the 
chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Finance  needs  any  proof  that  he  is  still 
a  gcod  silver  man,  it  is  furnished  by  the  opposition  of  his  Wall  street 
critics  and  their  newspaper  subordinates. 

Whenever  I  conclude  that  the  Senator  from  Indiana  has  aban 
doned  the  cause  to  which  he  has  given  the  best  days  of  his  life  I  will 
have  no  confidence  in  myself.  I  differ  from  him  in  this  instance,  but 
1  do  not  doubt  his  good  faith. 

I  am  aware,  of  course,  that  it  is  idle  to  dwell  upon  the  wealth  of 
one  person  and  the  poverty  of  another.  Legislation  can  never  obviate 
this  difficulty. 

It  has  often  been  said  that  if  we  were  to  commence  on  any  given 
day  upon  an  equal  footing,  the  evening  would  find  us  in  varying  cir 
cumstances. 

But  I  have  cited  the  instances  mentioned  and  have  referred  to 
want  of  patriotism  of  a  limited  but  very  powerful  class  that  the  coun 
try  might  appreciate  the  necessity  for  the  maintenance  of  those  rules 
which  have  ever  guided  this  body,  and  that  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  is  not  subject  to  the  dictation  of  a  dishonest  element,  however 
strong  it  may  be. 

But  a  few  days  ago  it  was  said  by  the  newspaper  critics  that 
there  was  not  a  Senator  on  this  floor  who  had  anything  to  contribute 
who  had  not  been  fully  heard ;  yet  we  know  that  Senators  who  have 
spoken  more  recently,  as  well  as  others  who  gave  expression  to  their 
views  earlier  in  this  debate,  all  contributed  to  our  instruction,  and  the 
Instruction  of  the  country,  and  each  of  them  spoke  upon  his  conscience, 
with  dignity  and  with  advantage  to  those  who  would  listen  or  who 


80  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

may  read.  I,  in  common  with  each  Senator  am  present  because  I 
consider  it  to  be  my  duty.  I  am  acting  in  accordance  with  what  I 
deem  to  be  the  sentiments  of  the  masses  of  my  countrymen. 

There  is  an  honest  difference  as  to  the  wishes  of  the  people.  I  am 
absolutely  of  the  opinion  that  my  State  is  with  me.  My  views  upon 
this  subject  are  not  unknown.  I  nave  expressed  them  many  times. 
They  have  been  crystallized  at  my  instigation  in  the  platform  of  more 
than  one  Democratic  convention  in  the  State  of  California.  I  have 
never  retracted  a  word  that  I  have  said  upon  the  subject  of  free  coin 
age,  and  I  am  here  taking  the  position  which  I  have  occupied  for  years. 
I  believe  that  we  are  all  endeavoring  to  do  our  best,  fully  aware  of  the 
great  responsibility  resting  upon  us,  and  which  is  not  resting  upon 
those  individuals  who  are  attacking  us ;  and  it  might  as  well  be  under 
stood  now  as  at  any  other  time  that  our  obligations  will  be  performed 
regardless  of  such  assaults. 

If  there  is  at  this  time  any  matter  the  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Finance  thinks  of  sufficient  importance  to  dispose  of,  I  have  no 
objection,  though  I  can  proceed  if  it  will  suit  better.  It  is  convenient 
either  way  as  far  as  I  am  concerned.  I  do  not  wish  to  disturb  the 
regular  business  of  the  Senate.  It  is  agreeable  to  me  to  yield,  and  it  is 
perfectly  agreeable  to  me  to  continue. 

I  lately  asked  a  gentleman  who  favors  unconditional  repeal 
whether  he  thought  we  are  suffering  from  a  lack  of  currency,  and  he 
said  "  undoubtedly." 

I  asked  another  gentleman,  also  an  enthusiast  in  the  same  cause, 
his  opinion,  and  he  stated  that  we  were  not  suffering  from  a  want  of 
currency.  Yet  both  of  them  agreed  that  there  should  be  unconditional 
repeal. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  informs  us  that — 

No  greater  mistake  could  be  committed  than  to  assume  that  the  present 
financial  embarrassment  is  caused  by  an  actual  scarcity  of  money  in  the  country. 

One  of  the  most  eloquent,  unconditional  repealers,  who  has 
spoken  during  the  present  Congress,  says : 

I  venture  the  assertion  that  we  are  not  suffering  to-day  from  a  lack  of 
money,  but  from  a  redundancy  of  money. 

"  Redundancy  "  is  defined  as  being  "  anything  superfluous  exceed 
ing  what  is  natural  or  necessary.  Superabundant,  exuberant."  So 
that  we  are  suffering  from  superfluous,  superabundant,  and  perhaps 
exuberant  money. 

The  cause  of  our  difficulty  seems  to  be,  according  to  this  theory, 
that  we  have  too  much  of  a  good  thing,  a  proposition  which,  however 
much  it  may  be  appreciated  by  others,  and  I  and  my  friends  decline  to 
believe,  for  not  only  do  we  discover  that  money  is  not  superabundant, 
but  that  it  is  uncommonly  difficult  to  procure.  Or,  if  there  be  such  a 
redundancy,  the  elusive  character  of  the  metal  may  account  for  our 
failure  to  hold  it.  The  more  common  view  taken  by  the  friends  of  the 
pending  bill  seems  to  be  that  money  is  scarce,  and  consequently  that 
business  can  not  be  done. 

I  mention  these  conflicting  views  to  show  that  our  opponents  can 
not  reconcile  their  arguments.  It  is  plain  that  the  repeal  of  the  Sher 
man  bill  can  not  be  insisted  upon  on  the  theory  that  our  circulation  is 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  81 

too  contracted,  because  the  effect  of  that  measure  has  necessarily  been 
to  increase  the  circulation.  And  it  is  equally  obvious  that  no  argu 
ment  based  upon  the  hypothesis  that  we  have  too  much  money  will 
ever  be  considered  sound  by  men  who  have  not  enough  to  transact 
their  daily  affairs. 

It  is  a  fact,  as  stated  by  one  of  the  very  able  speakers  who  has 
addressed  the  present  Congress,  "  that  one  dollar  in  actual  circulation, 
moving  about  in  business  circles  with  rapidity,  is  worth  any  number 
of  dollars  fastened  up  in  a  safe  or  located  in  a  bureau  drawer."  He 
might  have  added  that  one  dollar  in  circulation  is  of  greater  commer 
cial  importance  than  any  amount  of  precious  metal  which  may  be 
buried  under  the  Sierra  Nevada  Mountains.  It  ought  not  to  be  diffi 
cult  to  convince  a  man  who  is  ready  to  recognize  the  effect  of  a  logical 
statement — that  it  is  much  easier  to  get  a  dollar  when  there  are  a  mil 
lion  dollars  in  circulation  than  to  obtain  such  dollar  when  there  are 
only  a  thousand  in  existence. 

If  not  novel  it  is  at  least  worth  noting  that  in  this  day  and  gener 
ation  an  ample  circulating  medium  is  a  bad  thing.  Why  can  not  we 
support  as  large  a  circulation  as  France  ?  We  need  a  more  liberal  cir 
culation  than  that  country. 

Taking  the  position  of  our  opponents,  it  may  be  summarized  this 
way :  If  contraction  is  bad,  the  Sherman  law  caused  contraction ;  if 
expansion  is  bad,  the  Sherman  law  caused  expansion.  The  Sherman 
law  is  indeed  a  most  unfortunate  enactment.  It  excites  my  pity.  I  feel 
for  the  unfortunate  measure.  It  has  no  friends.  According  to  the 
statements  of  those  who  voted  for  it  it  never  had  any  friends.  Most 
of  them  supported  it  because  in  its  absence  silver  would  be  more  liber 
ally  dealt  with.  These  gentlemen,  who  were  far-seeing,  if  not  particu 
larly  candid,  knew  that  the  Bland-Allison  act  was  more  favorable  to 
silver,  and  hence  they  were  willing  to  substitute.  The  Democrats  were 
aware  of  the  same  thing,  and  they  voted  against  the  Sherman  bill,  be 
cause,  although  they  preferred  free  coinage  to  any  such  measure,  they 
nevertheless  desired  the  Bland-Allison  act  rather  than  the  Sherman  act. 

Under  these  conditions  it  is  suggested  by  a  Democratic  Admin 
istration  that  the  latter  act  be  repealed.  The  Bland-Allison  act  having 
already  departed  this  life,  silver  is  to  be  hopelessly  abandoned. 

Said  the  author  of  the  bill  under  consideration,  in  speaking  of  the 
same: 

The  bill  proposed  here  would  not  demonetize  a  single  silver  dollar  now 
circulating  in  any  part  of  the  country;  the  bill  has  come,  not  to  destroy  but 
to  save;  it  has  come  not  to  strike  down  silver  but  to  place  it  at  once  and 
forever  on  an  impregnable  basis  with  gold  in  the  circulation  of  the  country. 

Says  the  President  of  the  United  States,  in  his  message  to  Con 
gress  : 

At  this  stage  gold  and  silver  must  part  company,  and  the  Government 
must  fail  in  its  established  policy  to  maintain  the  two  metals  on  a  parity  with 
each  other. 

So  the  author  of  the  bill  introduced  it  for  the  purpose  of  saving 
silver;  and  the  President  recommends,  urges,  and  insists  upon  its  pas 
sage,  so  that  silver  and  gold  shall  part  company. 

I  do  not  desire  to  convey  the  idea  that  I  doubt  the  good  intentions 


82  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

of  those  who  here  hold  opinions  differing  from  my  own,  but  good  in 
tentions  will  not  suffice.     Said  Mr.  Webster: 

Good  intentions  will  always  be  pleaded  for  assumption  of  power,  but  they 
cannot  justify  it  even  if  we  were  sure  that  it  existed.  It  is  hardly  too  strong 
to  say  that  the  Constitution  was  made  to  guard  the  people  against  the  dangers 
of  good  intentions,  real  or  pretended. 

It  has  been  charged  that  those  who  are  opposed  to  unconditional 
repeal  are  endeavoring  to  attach  something  in  the  nature  of  what  is 
commonly  called  "  a  rider  "  to  the  bill.  This  is  entirely  unfounded. 
The  act  in  question  proposes  to  amend  the  Sherman  law  by  repealing 
one  of  its  clauses.  It  is  admitted  that  there  must  be  further  financial 
legislation,  and  yet  it  is  sought  to  first  accomplish  a  repeal  and  then 
afterwards  to  prepare  that  which  logically  should  be  an  amendment  or 
a  substitute.  The  argument  that  because  people  are  frightened  and 
have  been  deluded  by  monometallists  into  the  belief  that  the  Sherman 
law  is  in  some  way  connected  with  their  misfortunes  we  should  vote 
contrary  to  that  which  we  hold  to  be  common  sense,  is  unworthy  of 
consideration. 

It  is  our  obligation  to  explain  to  the  people  the  bearing  of  the 
Sherman  law  upon  the  country,  and  thus  restore  confidence.  Instead 
of  pandering  to  a  meaningless  panic  we  should  reason  with  those  who 
have  participated  in  it.  It  is  palpable  that  the  addresses  that  have  been 
made  in  this  Chamber  and  elsewhere  have  done  much  to  convince  the 
public  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  pretense  that  the  Sherman  act  is  at 
the  bottom  of  all  our  misfortunes. 

It  is  true  that  some  capitalists  threaten  to  get  up  another  panic, 
but  I  do  not  believe  they  can  succeed.  At  all  events,  it  is  not  a  bad 
idea  to  find  out  who  controls  this  Government. 

Those  who  are  opposed  to  unconditional  repeal  have  appreciated 
the  pleasant  references  made  to  their  exertions  by  the  New  York 
World.  I  remember  seeing  some  articles  a  short  time  since  in  the  St. 
Louis  Republic.  That  newspaper  was  edited,  as  we  all  know,  by  the 
distinguished  gentlemen  whose  pen  now  writes  from  day  to  day  our 
obituaries  in  the  World. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.     In  the  New  York  World? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  In  the  New  York  World.  I  believe 
about  the  middle  of  last  May  he  transferred  his  services  to  that  journal 
and  from  that  stand  he  is  writing-  to  us  and  of  us. 

I  have  been  looking  up  the  St.  Louis  Republic  during  the  period 
of  this  gentleman's  occupancy  of  the  editorial  chair.  I  am  about  to  re 
port  the  result,  not  to  make  him  experience  unpleasant  sensations,  for 
that  I  would  not  do,  but  because  he  was  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
on  resolutions  of  the  last  Democratic  national  convention,  and  from 
the  platform  he  read  to  the  assembled  Democracy  the  party  principles 
there  adopted,  with  the  exception  of  the  change  in  the  tariff  plank, 
which  was  made  upon  the  floor.  As  to  the  silver  plank,  it  came  from 
the  committee  over  which  he  presided,  and  he  personally  read  it.  His 
declarations  now  are  valuable  for  another  purpose. 

Senators  have  been  annoyed  at  his  remarks,  but  I  desire  to  assure 
them  that  the  New  York  World  does  not  mean  a  word  it  says  upon 
this  subject.  The  harsh  expressions  therein  contained  are  used  in  a 
Pickwickian  sense,  and  when  Senators  are  charged  with  a  violation  of 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  83 

duty  by  this  gentleman,  he  merely  acts  as  the  instrument  of  another. 
He  is  there  to  write  for  that  side.  He  does  not  pen  his  real  sentiments. 
I  am  endeavoring  to  vindicate  him,  and  hence,  I  wish  to  show  you  his 
actual  opinions,  not  only  to  exonerate  him,  but  likewise  to  present  the 
arguments  to  the  Senate  which  he  formerly  utilized  and  which  are 
deserving  of  consideration. 

In  the  St.  Louis  Republic  of  April  4,  he  said : 

A  Senator  is  quoted  as  saying  that  Mr.  Cleveland  is  amazed  at  the  strength 
of  the  free-silver  element  in  his  party.  That  is  nonsense.  Mr.  Cleveland 
knows  very  well  that  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  Democrats  in  every 
thousand  are  standing  squarely  on  the  declaration  of  their  party  platform  in 
favor  of  the  coinage  of  silver  and  gold  without  mint  charge  and  without  discrim 
ination  against  either  metal. 

NINE  HUNDRED  AND  NINETY-NINE  DEMOCRATS  IN  EVERY  THOUSAND. 

It  is  good  news  that  the  proportion  is  thus  large,  but  I  am  led  to 
fear  that  it  has  been  reduced  somewhat  hereabouts.  I  have  never 
doubted  that  the  mass  of  the  people  were  that  way.  I  presume  that 
this  article  may  be  considered  accurate  as  applying  to  the  people  rather 
than  to  Congress. 

Again,  he  said  in  the  same  paper  on  April  26  of  this  present  year, 
but  a  very  few  days  before  the  World  articles  were  put  before  us : 

The  financial  platform  adopted  at  the  Chicago  convention  as  part  of  the 
platform  on  which  the  Democratic  party  defeated  Harrison,  would  form  the 
basis  for  an  admirable  Treasury  policy  —  a  policy  of  bimetallism,  first,  last, 
and  all  the  time.  It  would  furnish  admirable  reading  for  Secretary  Carlisle 
whenever  a  few  dozen  millionaires  and  a  few  hundred  speculators  try  to  convince 
him  that  they  are  the  people. 

This  is  solid  reading.  There  is  truth  in  it,  I  admit;  but  such  an 
announcement  would  not  look  well  in  the  New  York  World. 

In  an  editorial  appearing  in  the  Republic  less  than  a  week  before 
the  gentleman  quoted  commenced  work  upon  the  World,  under  the 
heading,  "  Against  a  ruinous  contraction,"  we  find  the  following : 

It  ought  to  be  generally  understood  that  the  present  policy  of  redeeming 
the  Sherman  silver-bullion  notes  in  gold  only  is  temporary,  and  that  the 
Democratic  party  is  so  far  from  being  committed  to  it  that  it  disproves  and  con 
demns  it.  This  is  borne  out  by  the  party's  record  since  1873,  as  well  as  by  the 
national  platform  adopted  last  year  at  Chicago.  Democrats  have  never  ceased 
to  denounce  the  demonetization  of  silver. 

Then  follow  some  references  to  the  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr. 
SHERMAN],  which  I  shall  not  read. 

In  the  Republic  of  May  9  our  friend  makes  the  following  savage 
declaration : 

Secretary  Carlisle  has  demonstrated  that  with  the  aid  of  the  West  and  the 
South  he  can  maintain  the  Treasury  reserve  fund,  and  the  New  York  banks  can 
go  to  thunder. 

That  the  Republic  had  but  little  faith  in  the  panic  is  illustrated  by 
the  following,  taken  from  the  issue  of  May  8 : 

Having  discovered  that  the  rest  of  the  country  pays  no  attention  to  a 
"panic"  among  its  gamblers,  and  that  Secretary  Carlisle  can  not  be  stampeded 
by  a  speculative  "  squeeze,"  Wall  street  may  be  expected  to  pull  itself  together 
this  week  and  indulge  in  some  wholesome  meditation  upon  the  fact  that  its  con 
trol  of  the  finances  and  trade  of  the  country  is  errevocably  lost. 


84  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.    • 

The  course  since  pursued  by  our  editor  implies  that  Wall  street 
has  pulled  itself  together  and  has  pulled  the  editor  of  the  World. 
In  the  issue  of  May  8  I  find  this : 

Well,  Wall  street  has  had  its  threatened  "panic,"  and  what  is  the  result? 
A  few  lame  ducks  are  fluttering  from  additional  wounds,  some  of  the  water 
has  been  squeezed  out  of  the  inflated  stocks,  and  the  legitimate  business  of 
the  country  goes  on  steadily  and  prosperously.  The  time  when  a  flurry  among 
Wall  street  speculators  could  bring  on  a  crash  in  the  finances  and  trade  of 
the  country  is  gone  forever  and  the  country's  business  is  all  the  healthier 
for  it. 

That  this  teacher  of  the  people  was  right  in  his  faith  as  to  the 
brief  life  of  the  panic  is  corroborated  by  the  views  of  our  very  excel 
lent  and  able  Comptroller  of  the  Currency,  who  in  an  address  delivered 
at  a  dinner  tendered  to  him  by  the  bankers  of  Chicago  on  the  I4th  of 
this  month,  said : 

One  of  the  greatest  dailies  of  New  York,  in  the  introductory  to  an  account 
of  a  dinner  there  given  two  months  since,  at  which  I  had  the  honor  to  be 
the  guest,  said :  "  Amid  the  crashing  and  toppling  of  Western  banks  the  bankers 
of  New  York,  Republicans  and  Democrats  ajike,  met  last  night  and  gave  expres 
sion  to  their  faith  in  the  financial  stability  of  our  country.  It  can  be  but 
a  source  of  natural  congratulation  that  the  gathering  of  to-night  is  under 
other  and  different  circumstances.  The  disasters  then  threatening,  happily  for 
us  have  all  passed  away.  No  longer  banks  are  suspending  and  factories 
closing,  but  instead,  reopenings  are  the  order  of  the  day,  and  whirling  spindles 
and  smoking  forges  are  furnishing  labor  for  the  army  of  unemployed." 

But  I  am  digressing.  Some  one  may  say  that  there  is  no  incon 
sistency  in  the  attitude  of  the  editor  of  the  New  York  World,  because 
he  may  be  in  favor  of  silver  and  yet  desire  to  repeal  the  purchasing 
clause.  But  that  he  was  a  vigorous  opponent  of  unconditional  repeal 
is  manifest  from  the  St.  Louis  Republic  of  May  8,  where  occurs  the 
following : 

It  is  reported  from  Washington  that  a  poll  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
shows  a  majority  of  35  in  favor  of  free  coinage  of  silver.  In  such  a  House 
it  will  be  easy  to  redeem  the  pledges  of  the  Democratic  platform  to  repeal 
the  Sherman  law  and  to  substitute  for  it  the  coinage  of  both  gold  and 
silver,  without  discriminating  against  either  metal  and  without  charge  for 
mintage. 

This  is  very  important,  not  because  it  illustrates  the  inconsistency 
of  a  gentleman  who  was  expressing  his  sentiments  in  the  St.  Louis 
Republic  on  May  8,  and  who,  though  he  writes  editorials  for  the  New 
York  World,  does  not  express  the  same  views  therein — for  the  ques 
tion  of  his  consistency  or  inconsistency  is  not  vital  and  is  only  valu 
able  as  evidence  tending  to  show  the  exact  situation  of  the  contest — 
but  because  he  is  a  prominent  member  of  the  Democratic  party.  He 
certified  to  the  silver  plank  in  his  party's  platform.  Not  only  did  he 
certify  to  it,  but  he  was  chairman  of  the  committee  which  framed  it, 
and  he  actually  read  it  to  the  assembled  Democracy,  and  it  is  with 
pleasure  that  I  refer  to  his  construction  of  that  platform,  and  that  I 
call  attention  of  Senators  to  the  circumstance  that  he  agrees  that  the 
Sherman  law  should  be  repealed,  and  that  there  should  be  a  substitute 
for  that  law  providing  for  the  coinage  of  both  gold  and  silver  without 
discriminating  against  either  metal  and  without  charge  of  mintage. 
"  So  say  we  all." 

Mr.  PALMER.     If  the  Senator  will  allow  me  to  interrupt  him, 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  85 

I  wish  to  say  that  Mr.  Jones  did  not  read  the  declaration  of  principles, 
according  to  my  remembrance,  I  was  on  the  platform  at  the  time, 
and  I  think  it  was  read  by  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  [Mr.  VILAS.] 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  My  impression  is  that  Mr.  Jones 
went  up  to  read  it;  but  that  is  quite  unimportant. 

Mr.  PALMER.     I  know  that. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  My  impression  is  that  the  Senator 
is  mistaken,  but  I  may  be  in  error  about  it.  I  am  not  at  all  dogmatic 
on  that  point.  My  recollection  was  that  way,  but  it  is  a  matter  which 
did  not  impress  me  very  much  then. 

Mr.  BATE.  I  would  say  to  the  Senator  from  California  that 
the  gentleman,  to  whom  he  is  referring  was  the  chairman  of  the  com 
mittee  on  resolutions. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  Yes,  the  chairman  of  the  committee. 
On  reflection,  I  think  the  gentleman  took  the  stand  with  the  platform 
and  then  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  read  them. 

Mr.  PALMER.     Yes,  that  is  my  recollection. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     Well,  he  stood  by  it.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  PALMER.     Oh,  yes. 

Mr.  McPHERSON.  The  Senator  may  remember  another  thing 
which  perhaps  may  be  of  importance  in  that  connection.  The  gentle 
man  to  whom  the  Senator  from  California  refers  was  not  the  chair 
man  of  the  subcommittee  which  formulated  the  draft  of  the  platform, 
nor  a  member  of  the  subcommittee. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  spoke  not  of  a  subcommittee,  for 
a  subcommittee  is  not  the  committee.  I  spoke  of  the  committee. 
Hence  I  do  not  concede  that  I  have  been  corrected.  The  gentleman 
I  referred  to  was  chairman  of  the  committee.  I  do  not  mean  to  say 
that  he  wrote  this  particular  plank;  that  he  actually  sat  down  and 
penned  it.  I  do  not  know  who  penned  it.  It  has  a  composite  appear 
ance  in  some  aspects ;  but  let  us  not  be  too  technical  in  this  matter.  He 
was  chairman  of  that  committee.  He  came  into  the  convention,  and 
another  gentleman,  it  seems,  took  the  resolutions  and  read  them 
to  the  convention. 

We  are  now  told  that  a  subcommittee  drafted  this  plank.  All 
right,  but  that  gentleman  was  chairman  of  that  committee.  He 
•was  not  only  as  responsible  as  any  one  of  the  members,  but  was 
under  all  rules,  more  directly  concerned  than  anyone  else  with  refer 
ence  to  its  framing.  It  suited  him,  Mr.  President,  for  in  his  paper 
he  declared  for  that  construction  which  we  here  contend  for,  and 
which  is  justified  by  the  terms  of  the  instrument. 

On  May  5  the  same  editor  remarked  in  the  Republic : 

Gold  is  not  heavily  exported  from  the  Mississippi  Valley,  because  it  loses 
in  value  by  abrasion  so  that  it  is  not  worth  its  face,  and  because  its  weight 
makes  the  expense  of  freight  a  very  considerable  item.  To  secure  its  exporta 
tion,  however,  the  Federal  Treasury  can  pay  the  freight  on  it  and  store  it 
in  the  New  York  subtreasury,  giving  Western  and  Southern  holders  green 
backs  and  silver  certificates  in  exchange.  These  will  answer  every  purpose 
of  money,  and  by  continuing  this  process  of  collecting  at  public  expense  as 
much  gold  as  possible  in  the  New  York  subtreasury  it  will  be  comparatively 
easy  to  get  it  out  of  the  country.  Perhaps  after  all  this  would  be  the  best 
way  of  solving  the  gold  question. 

And  now  he  is  afraid  that  gold  may  leave  us.  In  the  issue  of 
May  2  there  is  a  very  pointed  editorial  attacking  Wall  street  and  com- 


86  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

menting  upon  the  ability  of  Mr.  Carlisle  to  resist  the  importunities  of 
the  speculators.  On  that  day,  among  other  wise  utterances,  the 
Republic  said: 

The  quicker  the  extra  session  of  Congress  is  called  the  better.  In  no  other 
way  can  Secretary  Carlisle  be  so  well  defended  from  the  Wall  street  speculators 
and  money  dealers,  who  are  determined  to  control  the  Treasury  in  spite  of 
the  Democratic  platform. 

But,  sad  to  relate,  Mr.  Editor,  the  extra  session  was  called,  and 
the  Democratic  majority  of  35  to  which  you  referred  passed  away, 
and  because  of  influences,  the  nature  of  which  I  do  not  absolutely 
know,  but  which  have  been  surmised  to  be  various,  this  majority  was 
obliterated,  and  the  cause  that  was  in  the  ascendant  failed  of  support, 
and  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  at  this  moment  is  striving  to  re 
sist  the  Wall  street  speculators  and  the  money  dealers  who  are  de 
termined  to  control  the  Treasury  in  spite  of  the  Democratic  platform, 
a  platform  which  you,  Mr.  Editor,  helped  to  make  and  for  which,  as 
far  as  this  plank  is  concerned,  it  afforded  me  pleasure  to  vote. 

Again,  in  an  editorial  of  May  12,  just  on  the  eve  of  his  depart 
ure  to  New  York,  the  gentleman  already  quoted  says: 

In  the  first  place  let  us  dispose  of  all  questions  about  the  Democratic 
national  platform  adopted  at  Chicago  by  pointing  out  that  the  policy  on  which 
the  Federal  Treasury  is  now  conducted  is  Harrison's  policy  as  carried  out 
by  Mr.  Foster,  of  Fostoria,  late  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  as  the  representative 
of  Wall  street  ideas  illustrated  in  the  careers  of  Messrs.  JOHN  SHERMAN  and 
ZIMRI  DWIGGINS.  As  this  policy  was  adopted  by  the  Harrison  Administration 
considerably  before  the  meeting  of  the  Democratic  national  convention,  as  that 
convention  condemned  in  sweeping  terms  the  entire  financial  policy  of  the  Har 
rison  Administration,  as  from  that  day  to  this  there  has  been  no  change  in 
the  policy  so  condemned,  it  is  evident  that  neither  the  Democratic  platform  nor 
the  Democratic  party  is  in  any  way  responsible  for  it.  Democrats  have  not 
yet  been  able  to  rally  to  the  support  of  Mr.  Cleveland  in  such  numbers  as  to 
force  a  change,  but  they  will  do  so,  and  that  in  the  near  future. 

"  In  the  near  future,"  did  you  say  ?  I  should  fix  it  "  in  the  sweet 
by  and  by." 

It  is  a  matter  of  regret  that  the  "  rally  "  has  not  been  had,  or  if 
had,  that  it  has  been  ineffectual. 

Continuing  in  the  same  editorial,  this  ex-chairman  of  the  commit 
tee  on  resolutions  of  the  Chicago  convention  says — and  this  is  ex 
cathedra : 

The  bimetallism  of  the  Democratic  party  means  that  silver  and  gold  shall 
be  freely  coined  at  the  legal  ratio  and  treated  by  the  Government  as  legal 
tenders  of  equal  value  when  so  coined.  Under  this  policy  silver  would  be  paid 
out  at  the  convenience  of  the  Treasury  and  we  would  hear  nothing  more  of 
the  talk  about  the  drain  of  gold. 

This  committee  chairman  ought  to  know. 

Why  do  not  the  advocates  of  unconditional  repeal  change  their 
tactics,  and  while  amending  the  Sherman  law  substitute  in  lieu  of  the 
purchasing  clause  legislation  that  will  allow  silver  and  gold  to  be 
freely  coined  at  the  legal  ratio?  Is  it  necessary  to  hold  meetings  of 
committees  and  to  deliberate  weeks  and  weeks  in  the  preparation  of 
such  a  silver  measure?  If  the  promises  made  in  the  bill  introduced 
by  the  Finance  Committee  are  to  be  realized,  let  the  realization  be  had. 

I  desire  to  say  here  that  the  honesty  and  elevated  character  of 
several  well-known  bimetallists,  who  have  been  induced  by  readily 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  87 

made  promises  to  support  unconditional  repeal,  render  these  gentle 
men  incapable  of  suspecting  that  which  I  feel  confident  is  a  fact,  to 
wit,  that  they  will  not  be  allowed  to  give  us  any  financial  relief.  Why 
not  introduce  a  bill  in  the  House  of  Representatives  covering  this  sub 
ject?  Why  not  do  something,  gentlemen?  Move  a  little.  We  yearn 
for  your  proposition  which  is  to  be  crystallized  into  a  financial  law. 
"  Hope  deferred  maketh  the  heart  sick." 

We  have  made  promises  ad  nauseam,  but  promises  are  always 
unsubstantial  if  there  is  a  lack  of  faith  in  the  intention  or  a  want  of 
ability  to  perform. 

Said  the  St.  Louis  Republic  on  April  30: 

An  esteemed  and  acute  reader  of  the  Republic  writes  that  in  less  than  a 
week  after  the  Boston  bankers  have  been  kind  enough  to  give  Mr.  Carlisle 
their  gold  for  greenbacks  they  will  send  some  one  with  the  greenbacks  around 
to  the  New  York  subtreasury  to  draw  out  the  gold  again.  This  is  entirely 
within  the  range  of  possibilities.  In  fact,  it  is  greatly  to  be  feared  that  these 
people  are  having  fun  with  Mr.  Carlisle.  But  he  is  entirely  too  high-minded 
to  suspect  them  of  it. 

I  fear  that  these  people  are  having  fun  with  a  great  many  able, 
distinguished,  and  conscientious  gentlemen. 

In  a  late  issue  of  the  World  the  junior  Senator  from  Kentucky  is 
referred  to  as  a  worthy  successor  of  Mr.  Carlisle.  In  this  I  agree; 
but  let  me  say  to  him  and  to  the  chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee, 
and  to  other  Senators  who  are  and  for  years  have  been  friends  of 
bimetallism  and  the  earnest  advocates  of  free  coinage,  that  it  is  greatly 
to  be  feared  that  these  people  are  having  fun  with  them,  and  permjt 
me  to  urge  in  tones  of  caution,  that  it  will  not  do  to  have  too  much 
regard  for  the  promises  of  men  whose  lives  have  been  devoted  to  mak 
ing  of  fortunes  because  of  the  mistakes,  inadvertences,  and  confiding 
manliness  of  those  with  whom  they  have  dealt.  And  such  are  the 
persons  who  are  seeking  to  delude  us  by  assurances  of  relief  to  come. 

From  the  Republic,  May  9: 

The  only  sound  money  for  America  is  a  currency  of  gold  and  silver,  freely 
coined.  Any  sort  of  bank  note  is  unsound  money.  Any  delegation  of  the 
sovereign  power  of  issuing  money  or  tokens  of  exchange  to  any  corporation 
or  individual,  to  any  bank,  State  or  national,  is  one  of  the  worst  forms  of 
robbery  ever  devised  against  the  people,  and  it  ought  to  be  resisted  by  them 
to  the  last  extremity. 

How  would  that  editorial  read  in  the  New  York  World?  It  is 
a  sound  editorial.  I  indorse  it.  I  also  agree  with  the  Republic  in 
its  editorial  of  May  10,  wherein  the  following  advice  was  given: 

The  talk  of  humiliating  Mr.  BLAND  of  Missouri  merely  because  he  insists 
on  representing  the  rank  and  file  of  the  Democratic  party  will  end  in  talk  and 
nothing  else.  The  people  who  undertake  to  turn  Mr.  BLAND  out  of  the  Demo 
cratic  party  will  have  to  turn  the  party  out  with  him. 

That  is  severe. 

In  the  Republic  of  May  9,  there  is  an  editorial  entitled  "  Money 
and  Sovereignty,"  wherein,  among  other  things  the  editor  in  com 
menting  upon  the  attempt  of  the  national  banks  to  control  the  Govern 
ment,  says: 

If  the  Democrats  of  the  Valley  allow  their  flank  to  be  turned  by  the  pluto 
crats  of  Boston  and  Wall  street;  if  they  surrender  the  principle  of  bimetallic 
currency,  freely  coined;  if  they  fall  in  with  the  Northeastern  plutocratic  policy 


88  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

of  contraction  of  the  national  currency;  if  they  sell  the  birthright  of  the  people 
for  the  concession  of  getting  into  local  circulation  a  lot  of  stuff  counterfeiting 
money  and  passing  as  money  with  the  ignorant,  though  under  the  Federal 
Constitution  a  wagon  load  of  it  cannot  be  made  to  pay  a  dollar  of  the  enormous 
debt  we  owe  to  the  Northeast  —  if  this  is  to  be  done  and  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people  is  to  be  delegated  to  corporations  which  with  such  a  delegation 
will  be  the  people's  masters,  then  we  will  have  in  the  United  States  such  a 
condition  of  complete  collapse  and  ruin  as  will  show  what  folly  it  is  to  try  to 
divorce  finance  from  common  sense  and  common  justice. 

I  wish  it  to  be  understood  that  I  do  not  press  these  utterances 
upon  the  Senate  for  the  purpose  of  inconveniencing  or  injuring  in  the 
slightest  degree  the  gentleman  who  promulgated  them.  But  in 
addition  to  the  reasons  that  I  have  already  given  I  regard  his  argu 
ments  while  he  was  upon  the  Republic  as  cogent,  and  am  willing  to 
adopt  the  greater  portion  of  them,  certainly  those  which  I  have  cited. 
As  he  was  the  leader  of  those  who  made  the  national  platform,  I  am 
delighted  to  know  that  his  view  of  the  meaning  of  that  platform 
wholly  coincides  with  mine.  I  am  confident  that  he  will  be  grateful 
to  me  for  my  explanation.  His  present  employment  embarrasses  his 
opinions  and  if  perchance  he  should  say  aught  seemingly  harsh  you 
must  not  forget  that  he  can  not  help  himself.  Some,  not  all  of  our 
Eastern  metropolitan  newspapers  have  pursued  in  many  instances  a 
course  that  can  bring  them  no  credit.  It  was  truly  said  by  the  Sen 
ator  from  Colorado  [Mr.  TELLER  ]  that  the  days  of  great  editors,  who 
molded  the  opinion  of  the  country  by  their  honest  and  brainy  argu 
ments,  seems  to  have  departed  in  many  parts  of  the  country.  The 
Hessian  there  holds  the  boards.  Of  course  we  have  an  able,  honest, 
and  fearless  press.  I  am  not  speaking  of  that  press. 

I  have  heard  it  stated  that  the  effect  of  an  increase  of  currency 
will  be  to  injure  the  poor  depositors  whose  money  is  being  kept  by  the 
New  York  and  other  banks.  It  is  true  that  the  banks  are  in  debt  to 
the  depositors.  When  one  of  the  advocates  of  the  pending  measure, 
who  claimed  that  its  defeat  will  enrich  the  New  York  bankers,  was 
asked  why  do  not  the  New  York  bankers  favor  it  if  its  passage  would 
be  of  such  vast  assistance  to  their  depositors,  he  responded  that  the 
New  York  bankers  would  not  take  this  money  because  they  had  learned 
that  "  honesty  is  the  best  policy."  I  confess  I  do  not  credit  this.  I 
do  not  think  that  the  New  York  bankers  refused  to  make  $20,000,000 
because  "  honesty  is  the  best  policy."  They  may  be  very  good  men, 
but  they  have  not  been  subjected  to  this  temptation. 

It  sought  to  persuade  us  that  the  bankers  of  the  country  are  in 
debt,  and  that  farming  communities  especially  are  all  right  because 
they  produce  something,  and  the  world  at  large  must  buy  their  pro 
ducts.  But  the  farmers  are  very  largely  mortgaged.  I  have  shown 
that  the  percentage  of  tenants  is  increasing.  The  more  corn  and  wheat 
they  raise  the  poorer  they  get,  because  it  costs  more  to  produce  the 
crop  than  it  brings  in  market.  Of  course  they  can  eat  some  of  their 
wheat  and  corn — and  I  presume  that  this  satisfaction  is  deemed  suf 
ficient  to  afford  them  happiness — but  when  they  are  all  reduced  to 
a  condition  of  tenancy,  they  may  be  denied  even  this  right. 

THE  UNCONDITIONAL  REPEAL  OF  THE  SHERMAN  LAW  MEANS   NO  LEGISLATION  IN  THE 
INTEREST   OF    SILVER    OR   IN   THE    INTEREST   OF   ANY   CURRENCY   EXCEPT   GOLD. 

Delenda  est  Carthago!  thundered  the  imperious  Roman.  Silver 
must  be  destroyed,  declare  the  monometallists  of  today. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  89 

The  bill  reported  to  the  Senate  by  the  committee  on  Finance 
contains,  in  addition  to  the  ordinary  legislative  matter,  a  promise  that 
Congress  will  do  better  than  the  terms  of  the  bill  indicate. 

It  is  a  Congressional  function  to  enact  a  law  which  becomes 
effectual  when  signed  by  the  President,  or  when  passed  notwithstand 
ing  his  dissent.  Beyond  this  the  Senate  has  no  power  to  go.  A  reso 
lution  such  as  that  contained  in  the  Finance  Committee's  bill  may  be 
aptly  denominated  a  brutum  fulmen — it  is  without  the  jurisdiction  of 
this  body.  Its  incorporation  into  a  law  is  the  mere  injection  of 
extraneous  matter  wholly  illogical  and  trifles  with  the  public. 

It  is  the  function  of  Congress  to  enact  laws,  not  to  promise  such 
enactment.  We  have  no  jurisdiction  to  enter  into  a  contract  to  enact 
such  a  measure.  Su'ch  a  promise  will  not  bind  our  successors,  nor 
can  it  bind  us. 

The  man  who  will  accept  that  declaration  in  lieu  of  that  to  which 
the  declaration  admits  silver  is  entitled,  would  be  willing  to  subsist 
upon  assertion  in  lieu  of  substantial  nutriment. 

I  can  not  question,  as  I  have  said,  the  good  faith  of  the  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Finance.  His  eloquent  address  in  advocacy  of 
the  bill  which  he  reported  demonstrates  that  he  is  not  in  sympathy 
with  what  I  believe  must  be  the  effect  of  such  legislation.  That  he 
has  been  induced  to  report  and  support  it  is  no  argument  reflecting 
upon  his  integrity.  He  is  acting  bona  fide.  He  thinks  that  if  Con 
gress  repeals  the  Sherman  law,  that  a  measure  akin  to  free  coinage 
will  be  passed  and  signed  by  the  President.  That  the  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Finance  has  faith  no  one  will  deny,  in  view  of  this 
condition  of  affairs.  I  am  aware  that  he  favors  the  free  coinage  of 
silver. 

I  know  this,  because  he  has  said  so  often  and  splendidly.  He 
has  been  led  to  believe  that  if  this  bill  becomes  a  law,  silver  will  find 
advocates  in  the  ranks  of  the  repealers.  I  am  not  without  confidence, 
notwithstanding  the  times,  but  I  hesitate  before  this  decidedly  test 
ing  proposition.  To  be  candid,  I  think  that  the  unconditional  repeal 
of  the  Sherman  act  is  the  end  of  financial  legislation  for  the  present. 
While  I  know  that  many  gentlemen  think  there  is  a  financial  system 
approaching,  I  nevertheless  assert  that  those  who  are  dictating  the 
present  movement  aspire  to  ruin  silver.  It  is  sought  to  delude  the 
Senate  into  the  belief  that  the  Administration  is  utilizing  its  utmost 
brain  work  to  put  silver  upon  its  proper  level ;  and  it  is  supposed  that 
the  Chief  Executive  is  engaged  in  this  arduous  task,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  he  has  squarely  declared  that  the  hour  has  arrived  when 
gold  and  silver  must  part  company.  He  does  not  equivocate.  He  is 
now,  as  always,  positive  and  direct.  He  has  not  said  a  word  calcu 
lated  to  deceive  anyone. 

There  should  be  no  question  in  the  mind  of  any  gentleman  here 
that  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  Sherman  bill  ends  financial  legis 
lation  for  this  session.  This  is  true  for  several  reasons.  First, 
because  Congress,  under  present  influences,  will  not  pass  any  remedial 
legislation ;  secondly,  because  if  such  legislation  were  enacted  the 
Presidential  veto  would  be  interposed. 

I  will  say  now  that  I  have  no  patience  with  the  view  of  duty 
which  practically  concedes  the  right  of  the  Executive  to  do  the  think 
ing  of  the  Senate.  It  is  his  duty  to  recommend.  This  he  has  done. 


90  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

It  is  our  duty  to  consider  his  recommendations  without  fear,  favor, 
or  affection.  This  I  am  endeavoring  to  do.  The  Senator  from  Texas 
[Mr.  MILLS],  said  tersely  and  forcibly  the  other  day  that  the  depart 
ments  of  government  must  be  kept  strictly  apart.  I  agree  with  him, 
but  do  not  concur  in  the  inferences  properly  deducible  from  his 
more  recent  remarks  upon  a  kindred  question. 

Some  one  has  said  that  he  has  followed  the  President's  leader 
ship.  So  have  I.  I  did  my  best  to  promote  his  election  in  my  State 
in  1884  without  results.  In  1888  I  had  the  honor  to  preside  for  half 
the  time  over  the  national  convention  which  nominated  him  for  Pres 
ident  of  the  United  States.  I  was  a  member  of  the  last  national  con 
vention,  and  my  delegation  voted  for  him  solidly. 

In  my  State  exertions  were  made  last  year  independent  of  the 
slightest  aid  from  the  national  committee  in  any  way  whatever,  which 
brought  California  into  the  Democratic  fold.  I  have  always 
defended  him  and  know  him  to  be  fearless  and  honest.  Hence  I  say 
that  my  attitude  towards  him  can  not  be  questioned  when  I  speak  of 
it  as  being  friendly.  But  as  a  Senator  I  criticise  Executive  declara 
tions  as  a  matter  of  duty,  and  because  I  deem  it  right  so  to  do.  I 
have  taken  a  position  from  which  I  do  not  propose  to  retreat  until 
satisfied  that  I  have  made  a  mistake. 

IF  THE  INTRINSIC  MERITS  OF  THIS  CASE  ARE  NOT  SUFFICIENT  TO  SATISFY  A  FRIEND 
OF  SILVER  THAT  UNCONDITIONAL  REPEAL  IS  A  DEVICE  OF  THE  GOLD  MONOMETAL- 
LISTS,  THE  SURROUNDINGS  OUGHT  TO  SUPPLY  ABSOLUTE  PROOF. 

We  find  the  Republican  party  practically  solid  in  favor  of 
unconditional  repeal.  We  discover  the  authors  of  the  demonetization 
of  1873  and  all  the  admitted  monometallists  insisting  that  uncondi 
tional  repeal  is  the  salvation  of  the  country.  But  we  find  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  who  positively  declares  that  gold  and  silver 
must  part  company,  appearing  here  through  his  message  and  urging 
us  to  unconditional  repeal  as  the  means  of  carrying  out  his  policy— 
that  is  to  say,  that  gold  and  silver  may  part  company,  Mr.  Cleveland 
asks  us  to  unconditionally  repeal  this  law.  If  the  consequence  of  un 
conditional  repeal  is  to  force  silver  away  from  gold's  companionship, 
no  one  who  believes  in  silver  can  support  the  scheme. 

Mr.  Cleveland's  ability  is  conceded,  and  he  tells  us  flatly  that  he 
asks  for  this  repeal  so  that  the  divorce  of  the  metals  shall  be  rendered 
effectual ;  no  conditional  decree  does  he  propose ;  it  must  be  absolute 
and  complete.  For  my  part  I  prefer  to  stand  with  the  masses  of  the 
Democratic  party,  who,  I  am  persuaded,  approve  of  the  course  of 
whose  leadership  I  am  following.  I  regret  that  the  Democracy  of  the 
Chamber  is  not  united.  I  know  that  there  are  able  and  conscientious 
gentlemen  on  the  other  side,  but  I  think  I  can  see  Democracy  standing 
with  a  tear  upon  her  cheek  and  looking  reproachfully  at  those  who 
have  long  been  her  champions  and  wearing  an  expression  that  seems  to 
say: 

Shall  we  then  meet  as  strangers, 
After  our  dreams  of  joy? 

Permit  me  to  ask  the  friend  of  silver  who  urges  unconditional  re 
peal  to  consider  his  associates  in  this  matter ;  to  remember  the  history 
and  sentiments  of  the  majority  of  those  who  are  acting  with  him. 
There  are  in  that  advocacy  able  and  loyal  men  upon  this  side  of  the 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  91 

Chamber  who  have  been  in  many  a  Democratic  campaign  and  whose 
integrity  is  indisputable.  There  are  enlisted  in  the  same  cause  Repub 
licans  who  have  done  great  service  to  their  country  and  whose  names 
are  linked  with  the  story  of  her  greatness ;  but  let  me  ask  the  advocate 
of  unconditional  repeal  to  point  out  a  Senator  or  any  individual  in  or 
out  of  this  Chamber  who  is  an  absolute  gold  monometallist  who  is 
not  in  favor  of  the  pending  measure. 

IS    IT    UNNATURAL    THAT    THE    SILVER    STATES    SHOULD    APPEAL    TO    CONGRESS    TO    DO 
THEM    JUSTICE,   AND    HAS   CONGRESS    ANY   RIGHT   TO   REFUSE   THE   APPEAL? 

Colorado  became  a  State  before  the  Hayes-Tilden  election.  Had 
it  not  been  for  Colorado  Mr.  Tilden  would  have  been  President.  The 
Electorial  Commission  would  not  have  been  heard  of. 

I  have  attempted  to  present  the  questions  involved  here  without 
reference  to  the  interests  or  desires  of  any  particular  State.  I  recog-_ 
nize  that  the  legislation  which  Congress  is  called  upon  to  enact  involves 
something  beyond  personal  profit ;  that  it  comprehends  more  than  the 
advancement  of  individual  views,  or  the  vindication  of  personal 
theories.  Hence,  I  have  sought  to  argue  the  pending  issue  regardless 
of  advantages  which  might  be  conferred  upon  a  particular  person  or 
section  by  the  adoption  of  the  sentiments  to  which  I  subscribe ;  because 
I  have  recognized  and  do  recognize  the  truth  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
Government  to  do  that  which  is  for  the  benefit  of  the  greatest  number 
and  to  adopt  that  policy  from  which  will  flow  the  largest  amount  of 
happiness. 

Colorado  was  admitted  to  the  Union  at  a  time  when  she  was  able 
to  accomplish  the  triumph  of  a  Republican  President.  Wyoming, 
Montana,  and  Idaho  were  also  admitted,  mainly  by  Republican  en 
deavor. 

I  do  not  mention  these  circumstances  because  I  have  any  doubt 
of  the  right  or  duty  of  Congress  to  admit  these  States.  Had  I  been 
here  I  would  have  voted  for  admission.  In  this  struggle  Colorado 
and  Montana  find  that  they  are  the  principal  silver  producing  States. 
Idaho  relies  largely  upon  the  same  industry.  Wyoming  is  tributary 
in  a  degree  to  the  territory  covered  by  these  States,  and  Colorado,  by 
whose  vote  Mr.  Hayes  became  president,  finds  itself  in  direct  antago 
nism  to  the  Republican  party.  I  am  a  Democrat,  firmly  convinced  of 
the  correctness  of  my  party's  principles,  and  yet  I  stand  here  and  de 
fend  the  cause  in  which  the  efforts  of  Colorado  and  Montana  and 
Idaho  and  other  silver  producing  regions  and  their  dependencies  are 
enlisted.  I  do  this  not  because  I  believe  that  silver  should  be  sold  to 
the  Government  for  the  benefit  of  silver-producers,  but  I  hold  to  my 
present  view  because  I  am  satisfied  that  the  cause  of  silver  is  not  re 
stricted  to  silver  States  and  is  not  bounded  even  by  the  confines  of 
this  Republic,  but  is  circumscribed  alone  by  the  limits  of  enlighten 
ment. 

I  have  attempted  to  show  why  this  country  should  maintain  silver 
coinage,  and  I  have  not  said  one  word  in  support  of  the  notion  that 
the  United  States  should  assist  in  the  use  of  this  metal  because 
certain  States  were  greatly  interested  in  its  production.  But  I  con 
fess  at  this  time  to  a  feeling  for  the  silver  States.  They  were  called 
into  the  sisterhood  of  the  American  Union  by  the  Republican  party, 
which  at  this  moment  laughs  at  their  distress,  smiles  at  their  ruin,  and 


92  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

plans  their  disintegration.  These  States  come  to  this  Congress  pos 
sessing  the  same  sovereignty  enjoyed  by  Massachusetts  and  New  York. 
They  ask  for  friendly,  nay,  they  have  a  right  to  expect  affectionate 
treatment.  They  are  met  with  the  cold  blooded  announcement  that 
their  inhabitants  are  few  in  number,  their  taxable  property  immaterial, 
and  that  for  such  reasons  it  is  not  a  mistake  to  immolate  them  upon 
the  pyre  erected  by  the  magnates  of  Wall  street. 

Here  I  pause  to  set  my  foot  firmly  and  immovably.  I  ask  for 
the  enforcement  of  no  policy  destructive  to  our  common  country,  but 
I  demand  square  behavior  toward  every  member  of  that  Union  whose 
permanency  has  been  decreed  in  the  storm  of  battle  and  proclaimed 
by  constitutional  declaration.  Colorado,  Montana,  and  Idaho  may  not 
dictate  to  their  American  sisters,  but  they  cannot  be  ignored  or  re 
pudiated.  If  there  are  any  bright  pages  in  the  story  of  the  Republican 
party,  they  are  to  be  found  in  the  record  of  that  great  struggle  which 
culminated  in  the  organic  announcement  which  inhibits  secession.  My 
Republican  friends,  you  wooed  Colorado,  Idaho,  and  Montana  into 
the  fold ;  you  brought  them  here  upon  the  implied  promise  that  they 
would  be  benefited  by  the  affiliation.  You  solicited  them  to  enter 
into  a  government  contract  from  whose  obligations  they  might  never 
be  discharged,  and  having  thus  tied  them  to  you,  you  are  crowding 
them  to  the  wall. 

Here  in  this  hour,  when  the  sunlight  of  liberty  illumines  the  after 
noon  of  the  nineteenth  century,  you  tell  us  that  these  States  have  no 
rights  which  you  are  bound  to  respect.  This  I  deny.  I  am  a  believer 
in  the  reformation  of  the  tariff.  I  am  perhaps  radical  in  my  theories, 
and  yet  when  I  am  brought  to  the  task  of  altering  an  instrument 
based  upon  a  different  plan,  which  is  the  result  of  the  legislation  of 
a  generation,  I  will  not  hesitate  to  consider  the  status  of  those  whose 
property  has  been  invested  and  whose  experience  has  been  had  under 
another  policy  supposed  to  be  fixed  and  lasting.  I  comprehend  what 
the  destruction  of  the  silver  industry  means  to  Colorado,  Montana,  and 
Idaho.  I  have  no  interest  in  either  one  of  those  Commonwealths  ex 
cept  the  interest  which  ought  to  be  felt  by  each  citizen  of  the  United 
States. 

But  I  know  that  the  enactment  which  is  contemplated  means  the 
ruin  of  the  silver-mining  States.  You  object  because  those  States 
produce.  Why  should  they  not  produce?  Why  should  their  citizens 
not  demur  to  a  programme  which  must  degrade  and  bankrupt  them? 
Throughout  all  nature  the  oppressed  protests  against  the  oppressor. 
History  is  pregnant  with  such  examples.  But  reasonable  beings  do  not 
monopolize  this  characteristic.  The  least  of  God's  creatures  yield 
obedience  to  the  same  law.  Scarcely  a  worm  crawls  that  does  not 
resent  the  heel  of  the  intruder ;  the  serpent  strikes,  the  poisonous  adder 
hisses  when  man  places  upon  them  the  pressure  of  unfriendly  contact ; 
the  sheep  fiercely  defends  its  offspring;  the  trembling  and  wounded 
deer  strikes  the  hound  with  deadly  power.  The  harmless  dove,  spend 
ing  its  powers  to  their  utmost  tension  to  escape  its  destroyer,  and 
spending  its  ultimate  energies  to  elude  the  pursuit  of  its  dreaded  ad 
versary,  screams  in  pain  and  terror  as  it  falls  beneath  the  talons  of  the 
kite.  And  shall  we  wonder  if  a  Commonwealth,  organized  under  our 
Constitution  and  conformable  to  our  laws,  shall  protest  against  the 
enactment  of  a  statute  which  shall  substitute  ruin  for  prosperity,  sad- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  93 

ness  for  joy,  and  which  shall  render  her  incompetent  for  existence; 
which  shall  exile  business  from  her  cities,  drive  the  miner  from  his 
home,  and  leave  to  the  eagle,  the  emblem  of  our  liberty,  to  signal 
desolation  from  its  mountain  eyrie? 

Mr.  President,  if  it  is  desired  to  aid  the  cause  of  silver,  why  can 
we  not  incorporate  in  this  bill  an  effective  recognition  of  that  metal? 
It  is  idle  to  pretend  that  the  subject  must  be  more  fully  considered. 
Complaint  is  made  by  parties  within  this  body,  and  parties  without,  to 
the  effect  that  the  Senate  is  taking  up  too  much  time. 

Why  do  not  the  gentlemen  who  are  becoming  restive  utilize  their 
industry  and  their  talents  in  suggesting  a  financial  measure  such  as 
will  meet  the  admitted  demands  of  the  country?  Why  is  it  that 
they  are  incapable  of  doing  this  now,  when,  according  to  their  theory, 
they  will  be  able  to  bring  about  the  wished-for  scheme  later  on  ? 

What  hope  can  the  people  of  the  United  States  justly  entertain 
that  a  body  incompetent  to  devise  ways  and  means,  in  the  month  of 
September,  1893,  will  develop  proper  qualifications  later  in  the  season? 
Does  the  climate  affect  the  financial  ability  of  the  anti-silver  people, 
and  if  the  weather  is  not  favorable  to  the  solution  of  the  broader  ques 
tion,  I  cannot  understand  the  point  that  this  is  a  good  time  for  the 
enactment  of  the  pending  measure. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  holds  out  no  hope  to  those 
who  are  upon  our  side  of  this  question.  He  flatly  repudiates  silver, 
and  those  who  know  Mr.  Cleveland  and  are  aware  of  his  firmness  of 
character,  do  not  doubt  that  he  will,  as  I  have  said,  at  once  veto  any 
measure  designed  to  accomplish  any  of  the  results  for  which  the  friends 
of  silver  are  struggling.  I  am  no  prophet,  and  I  do  not  claim  to  pos 
sess  any  kindred  gift ;  but  the  most  ordinary  intellectuality  can  safely 
be  depended  upon  to  foretell  the  action  of  the  President  should  a  sep 
arate  measure  extending  the  circulation  of  silver  be  presented  to  him. 
He  is  anxious  to  repeal  the  Sherman  act,  and  while  he  would  not  favor 
an  amendment  recognizing  the  two  metals  as  money,  still,  if  he  could 
not  obtain  the  repeal  of  the  purchasing  clause  in  any  other  mode,  it 
is  probable  that  he  would  acquiesce  in  a  fair  compromise — a  compro 
mise  in  public  interest. 

Senators  may  ask,  What  plan  do  you  suggest?  Mr.  President, 
we  are  not  in  a  position  to  suggest  an  amendment,  because  it  is  openly 
stated  that  those  who  have  this  bill  in  charge  will  not  accept  any  amend 
ment.  They  are  absolute  repealers — nothing  else.  If  we  defeat  un 
conditional  repeal,  they  will  perhaps  descend  from  their  lofty  eminence 
and  talk  fair.  As  it  is  now,  we  are  informed  in  advance  that  there  is 
no  midway  place  of  meeting ;  that  we  must  cross  the  street  and  present 
ourselves  in  humble  homage  before  the  unmoved  champions  of  abso 
lute  repeal. 

The  law  does  not  require  that  which  is  useless.  If,  owing  to 
business  relations  with  you,  Mr.  President,  it  is  my  duty  to  make  you 
a  tender  before  a  cause  of  action  arises  in  my  favor,  and  if  you  notify 
me  that  it  is  not  worth  while  to  make  such  tender — that  you  will  not 
accept  it — then  I  am  exonerated  from  the  obligation  and  am  not  forced 
to  do  that  which  must  necessarily  be  vain.  Such  is  our  position  here, 
and  such  must  it  continue  to  be  as  long  as  our  opponents  declare  that 
they  will  accept  no  compromise. 

I  may  be  permitted  to  urge  that  there  should  be  no  doubt  of  the 


94  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

good  faith  of  those  who  are  contending  upon  either  side  of  this  sub 
ject;  and  that  being  so — and  I  address  these  remarks  particularly  to 
those  of  my  own  political  faith — it  is  obviously  our  duty  to  come  to 
gether  and  make  a  reasonable  and  rational  arrangement,  one  that  can 
be  accepted  without  humiliation  by  all  parties.  Unless  the  Democratic 
members  of  the  Senate  shall  come  together,  the  consequences  to  the 
party,  and  therefore  to  the  country,  must  inevitably  be  disastrous. 
The  personal  ambition  or  interests  of  one  individual  or  of  a  few  in 
dividuals  ought  not,  it  is  true,  obstruct  the  course  of  party  policy. 

But  here,  where  probably  a  majority  of  the  Democratic  Senators 
are  firmly  convinced  that  the  unconditional  repeal  of  the  purchasing 
clause  of  the  Sherman  act  should  not  be  carried  out,  it  is  not  only 
rational,  but  common  sense,  to  say  that  their  opinions  ought  to  be 
respected,  at  least  to  the  extent  heretofore  indicated.  I  do  not  think 
that  the  wildest  man  on  Wall  street  is  foolish  enough  to  claim  now 
that  the  bad  times,  regarding  which  we  have  talked,  have  been  brought 
about  by  the  Sherman  act,  or  that  good  times  will  come  because  of  the 
repeal  of  that  act.  Such  an  argument  will  be  considered  puerile  in 
the  near  future.  Such  is  the  general  verdict. 

I  have  brought  to  the  consideration  of  this  subject  no  feeling  of 
personal  advantage.  The  statistics  before  the  Senate  demonstrate  that 
California's  interest  in  silver  is  but  little  more  than  that  of  any  other 
State  in  the  Union.  As  far  as  the  metals  are  concerned — and  they 
constitute  but  a  small  part  of  her  wealth — she  is  a  gold  producer,  and 
will  remain  so  for  many  years.  In  fact,  I  doubt  whether  half  of  her 
mineral  wealth  has  been  extracted.  But  the  masses  of  our  people, 
and  I  truly  believe  the  masses  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  favor 
the  freer  use  of  silver  and  its  fair  and  liberal  treatment.  I  am  for 
dealing  justly  by  every  State  within  the  Union,  and  as  one  of  the 
representatives  of  California,  I  would  feel  derelict  if  I  did  not  express 
myself  fully  and  freely  upon  the  issues  here  pending,  regardless  of 
the  stupid  assertions  of  certain  newspapers  who  seek  to  dictate  our 
conduct. 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  desire  that  anything  I  have  said  shall 
be  construed  into  an  intimation  that  I  fear  that  this  Republic  has  any 
thing  but  a  glorious  future.  I  have  sought  to  point  out  rocks  in  the 
pathway  of  her  progress,  and  have  endeavored  to  picture  and  combat 
those  evils  which  I  consider  for  the  moment  threaten  her.  I  have 
every  confidence  in  the  honesty  of  the  masses  of  our  electors,  and  do 
not  permit  myself  to  question  that  they  will  in  the  end  solve  all  prob 
lem?  rightly.  Our  country  has  met  and  has  overcome  dangers  seem 
ingly  insurmountable.  After  she  threw  off  her  allegiance  to  the  British 
Crown,  and  when  she  had  but  partially  recovered  from  the  effort  of 
her  birth,  she  was  assailed  by  her  former  antagonist,  the  most  powerful 
of  nations;  but  the  bravery  that  had  been  sufficient  to  win  her 
emancipation  and  to  make  good  the  declaration  of  her  independence 
was  fully  adequate  to  the  task  of  defending  her  institutions. 

Without  speaking  of  her  war  with  Mexico,  I  may  refer  in  demon 
stration  of  her  wonderful  capacity  not  only  to  the  great  civil  strife, 
wherein  the  lives  of  thousands  of  her  bravest  sons  and  millions  of  her 
treasure  were  yielded  that  she  might  not  be  dismembered;  but  more 
remarkable  to  me  even  than  this  has  been  her  recuperation  since  that 
struggle,  not  so  much  financially,  because  her  resources  are  imparalleled 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  95 

and  the  result  natural,  but  I  speak  of  the  Union,  not  merely  in  theory 
but  the  union  in  fact.  When  I  behold  men  who  have  bravely  fought 
in  opposing  armies,  and  who  bear  upon  their  bodies  the  proof  of  that 
valor  to  which  unborn  generations  will  turn  with  pride  and  amazement, 
sitting  together  in  this  Chamber  and  mingling  with  each  other  and 
acting  in  common  endeavor  to  promote  the  happiness  of  the  people,  I 
am  driven  to  the  conclusion  that  we  may  err  for  a  time  and  may  suffer 
as  the  penalty  of  our  error,  but  we  can  not  follow  mistaken  counsels 
to  destruction. 

Nor  is  my  faith  in  the  perpetuity  of  this  Republic  dependent  only 
upon  the  ability  and  patriotism  of  her  people,  but  the  natural  advan 
tages  which  God  has  given  her  afford  assurances  of  indestructibility. 
While  Europe  has  been  endeavoring  to  solve  the  problems  of  life  for 
many  hundred  years,  her  population  has  increased  until  its  extent  has 
begotten  the  gravest  apprehension;  while  contending  armies  have 
passed  and  repassed,  have  gone  forward  and  have  retreated  over  almost 
every  inch  of  her  soil ;  while  for  ages  the  oppressor  has  cruelly  dis 
regarded  the  most  sacred  privileges  of  his  subjects ;  while  laws  have 
been  so  framed  as  to  increase  the  disparity  between  the  rich  and  the 
poor ;  while  hereditary  titles  and  so-called  inherited  respectability  have 
impeded  the  progress  of  the  masses  and  maintained  in  places  of  power 
those  who  have  neither  the  ability  nor  the  integrity  to  justify  pro 
motion,  this  great  continent  was  undergoing  a  process  of  preparation 
fitting  itself  for  the  citizens  of  today.  Upon  its  vast  plains  the  loam 
of  ages  accumulated  in  anxiety  for  the  husbandman's  industry. 
Within  its  mountains  the  Giver  of  all  deposited  vast  stocks  of  those 
metals  useful  to  mankind  and  filled  the  gravel  and  rock  of  the  Sierras 
with  gold  and  silver — the  money  of  the  ages.  Great  rivers  pierced 
this  mighty  domain  qualified  to  bear  the  burdens  of  commerce  and  to 
carry  from  market  to  market  goods  and  products  to  sustain  civilization. 
Lakes  second  only  to  the  ocean  were  impounded  as  if  in  anticipation 
of  their  usefulness  to  posterity.  The  eastern  and  western  shores  held 
back  the  ocean  storms  of  the  world,  and  nature  seemed  to  look  toward 
the  rising  and  setting  sun,  beckoning  Progress  to  America's  arms 
and  tempting  her  with  the  choicest  offerings.  This  is  the  heritage 
which  we  have  received,  and  which  it  is  ours  to  faithfully  guard ;  and 
while  I  believe  that  the  step  which  the  supporters  of  the  pending  bill 
demand  that  we  shall  take  is  retrogressive,  I  do  not  doubt  that  what 
ever  may  be  done  here  this  Republic  will  march  on  and  on.  (Ap 
plause  in  the  galleries.) 


CHINESE  EXCLUSION 


SPEECH  DELIVERED 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
Thursday,  Nov.  2,  1893. 

The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  bill  (H.  R.  3687)  to  amend  an 
act  entitled  "An  act  to  prohibit  the  coming  of  Chinese  persons  into  the  United 
States,"  approved  May  5,  1892 — 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California,  said : 

Mr.  President:  I  shall  detain  the  Senate  but  a  few  moments 
with  reference  to  the  pending  measure,  as  I  deem  it  essential,  if  we 
desire  to  transact  any  business  at  all  concerning  it,  that  the  matter 
should  be  brought  to  a  head  at  once. 

I  have  listened  to  all  of  the  arguments  made  by  the  disinguished 
Senators  who  have  addressed  themselves  to  this  bill,  and  I  have  heard 
many  things  regarding  the  Chinese  which  I  never  heard  before. 
Perhaps  this  is  because  I  know  something  about  the  race,  while 
Senators  who  have  furnished  the  information  have  never  been  brought 
in  contact  with  those  of  whom  they  have  treated. 

A  gentleman  was  once  asked  whether  he  had  ever  seen  the  Alle 
gheny  Mountains.  He  replied :  "  Why,  sir ;  of  course  I  have.  Did  not 
I  work  for  the  contractor  who  built  them  ?  "  There  are  remarks  made 
here  with  relation  to  the  Chinese  which  give  me  the  impression  that 
Senators  who  have  addressed  us  upon  the  subject,  while  acting 
innocently,  have  nevertheless  committed  themselves  without  full  knowl 
edge  or  correct  advice. 

I  do  not  intend  to  describe  the  condition  of  the  Chinese.  This 
has  been  done  here  so  often  by  those  thoroughly  competent  for  the 
task  that  I  should  deem  it  an  intimation  that  Senators  were  unable 
to  appreciate  facts  when  presented  plainly,  if  I  endeavored  to  travel 
over  the  ground  again. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  people  of  California  have  succeeded  in 
obtaining  a  major  portion  of  this  undesirable  element.  The  Chinese 
have  come  to  us.  We  have  them.  We  who  are  side  by  side  with 
them,  who  move  among  them,  who  necessarily  learn  something  about 
them,  are  told  by  Senators  who  have  had  no  such  opportunity,  who 
view  them  from  afar,  that  they  constitute  an  immigration  that  is 
rather  valuable  and  that  after  all  they  are  a  desirable  people  to 
cultivate. 

In  Harper's  Weekly,  of  date  July  23,  and  in  another  number  of 
the  same  weekly  dated  July  30,  1870,  I  find  illustrations  accompanied 
by  an  article  in  which  we  are  informed  that  a  certain  gentleman,  Mr. 
Sampson,  residing  in  North  Adams,  Mass.,  who  was  conducting  a 
boot  and  shoe  business  in  that  enterprising  locality,  found  himself 
unable,  or  at  least  unwilling,  to  pay  to  his  white  employees  the  sums 

96 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  97 

which  they  demanded ;  he  accordingly  sent  an  agent  to  California  and 
imported  a  number  of  Chinese  operatives. 

The  pictures  to  which  I  allude  illustrate  the  Mongolians  at  work 
in  a  Massachusetts  shoe  shop.  But,  Mr.  President,  it  turned  out  in 
a  very  few  days  that  there  was  a  commotion  in  that  good  old  Common 
wealth,  and  the  Chinamen  who  had  been  thus  imported  found  it  well 
to  leave  at  a  speed  much  greater  than  that  displayed  at  the  time  of 
their  advent. 

Hence,  I  may  be  permitted  to  remark  that  unless  there  has  been 
a  change  of  opinion  the  gentlemen  who  regard  the  Chinamen  as  ad 
vantageous  for  California  do  not  regard  them  as  very  desirable  for 
themselves. 

In  the  city  of  San  Francisco  there  are  congregated  an  immense 
number  of  Chinese.  The  Senator  from  Minnesota  [Mr.  DAVIS  ]  who 
so  ably  and  eloquently  championed  their  cause  here,  has  stated  that 
he  has  witnessed  transactions  or  sights  in  that  locality  of  a  horrible 
character.  Indeed  no  one  can  visit  the  place  without  being  made 
aware  that  a  Chinaman  differs  from  anyone  ever  before  brought  within 
the  scope  of  his  observation. 

The  Senator  also  referred  to  the  circumstance  that  Chinamen  send 
their  countrymen's  bones  to  Asia,  thus  indicating,  I  suppose,  a  belief 
that  this  country  is  scarcely  good  enough  to  hold  the  relicts.  No 
special  objection  is  made  to  the  deportation  of  Chinamen's  bones,  but. 
the  people  of  California  prefer  that  the  Chinaman  should  go  to  China 
before  he  has  reached  a  state  where  it  is  impossible  to  transport  more 
than  a  portion  of  his  being. 

In  this  connection,  and  as  illustrative  of  Chinese  habits,  I  might 
mention  the  fact  that  some  years  ago  an  officer  was  walking  upon  his 
beat  on  Dupont  street,  San  Francisco,  when  he  detected  a  peculiar 
odor  permeating  the  atmosphere.  While  he  was  tolerably  familiar 
with  the  flavor  of  the  effluvia  of  Chinatown,  as  he  had  been  in  the  habit 
of  taking  care  of  that  somewhat  singular  locality,  yet  there  was  some 
thing  unusual  about  this,  something  differing  from  the  ordinary.  He 
procured  one  of  his  associates  to  accompany  him,  and  entering  an 
adjacent  Chinese  dwelling  and,  passing  three  or  four  stories  under 
ground,  they  came  to  a  room  beneath  the  sidewalk  wherein  the  air 
was  unendurably  corrupt. 

There  they  found  a  great  caldron  in  which  there  were  bodies  of 
deceased  Chinamen,  and  these  were  being  boiled  for  the  purpose  of 
extracting  the  bones  for  shipment.  The  chef  who  seemed  to  preside 
over  the  operation  smiled  as  the  officers  entered,  and  explained  to 
them  quite  fully  that  this  was  by  far  the  most  approved  method  of 
preparing  the  proposed  consignment.  Of  course  the  institution  was 
suppressed  as  a  nuisance. 

Mr.  President,  Senators  have  probably  heard  of  highbinders.  A 
highbinder,  as  we  understand  the  matter,  is  an  individual  whose 
business  it  is  to  murder  for  hire.  Commotions  in  Chinese  society 
caused  by  highbinder  warfare  are  not  infrequent.  Such  a  contest 
simply  means  that  conflicting  associations  of  those  whose  business  is 
assassination  have  determined  to  settle  in  blood  issues  arising  as  the 
result  of  their  nefarious  trade.  In  San  Francisco  it  is  common  knowl 
edge  that  the  highbinder  executes  the  edicts  and  commands  of  his 
employer.  A  highbinder  is  occasionally  caught  after  he  has  killed 


98  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

some  one,  and  upon  conviction  is  hanged.  His  shirt  of  mail,  suspended 
as  a  trophy  in  the  police  department,  indicates  that  he  was  an  indi 
vidual  of  considerable  enterprise  and  that  he  possessed  the  inventive 
genius  which  is  so  greatly  admired  by  his  American  advocates. 

We  have  sought  to  deal  with  the  Chinese  in  a  humane  manner. 
We  have  done  our  best  to  shield  them  from  violence.  Charges  to  the 
contrary  are  baseless ;  and  while  we  have  been  criticised  because  of 
our  attitude  towards  the  Chinese,  the  fact  remains  that  they  prefer 
to  stay  in  California  rather  than  to  go  anywhere  else.  With  all  our 
faults  they  enjoy  residence  with  us.  They  have  no  confidence  that 
they  will  be  well  and  profitably  received  in  the  bosoms  of  those  who 
loudly  demand  unrestricted  immigration  and  who  appear  to  consult 
Chinese  convenience  rather  than  the  interests  of  our  own  race. 

Mr.  President,  it  has  been  said  that  the  legislation  proposed  here 
is  peculiar.  So  it  is  peculiar  because  it  deals  with  a  peculiar  subject 
and  a  peculiar  people.  It  deals  with  a  race  differing  from  all  others 
in  essential  particulars.  The  Senator  from  Minnesota  eloquently 
referred  to  the  antiquity  of  the  Chinese  Empire  and  spoke  of  its  ancient 
greatness.  He  prophesied  that  it  will  stand  when  existing  empires, 
republics,  and  dynasties  have  passed  from  the  earth.  Perhaps  this 
may  prove  true ;  but  the  Chinese  Empire  of  to-day  is  not  a  model  of 
progression.  On  the  contrary,  it  presents  the  worst  features  of  modern 
society.  It  is  incapable  of  absorbing  knowledge  and  oblivious  to  the 
demands  of  enlightenment. 

Born  in  a  State  where  Chinamen  have  been  from  the  time  of 
the  organization  of  the  government ;  witnessing  them  and  their  con 
duct  as  a  boy,  as  a  man,  in  a  professional  and  in  other  capacities,  I 
am  thoroughly  familiar  with  their  habits,  with  their  capabilities,  and 
their  moral  status.  When  Senators  condemn  this  bill  because  It  dis 
credits  the  Chinaman  as  a  witness,  they  forget  that  such  a  rule  merely 
recognizes  the  existence  of  a  characteristic,  to  disregard  which  would 
be  to  assert  that  it  is  impossible  for  this  Government  to  maintain  or 
enforce  its  laws.  Never  —  and  I  say  it  unqualifiedly  —  never  have  I 
known  a  Chinaman  whom  I  would  believe  under  oath  in  a  matter  in 
which  he  was  interested.  Can  that  be  said  of  any  other  class  or  of 
any  other  people?  It  is  not  for  me  to  philosophize,  to  analyze  the 
Chinese  disposition,  or  to  seek  to  draw  from  their  history  anything 
accounting  for  these  deficiencies.  I  am  speaking  of  things  as  they 
exist.  This  clause  is  essential  to  the  efficiency  of  the  measure. 

So  true  is  it,  Mr.  President,  that  a  Chinaman  can  not  be  believed 
on  oath,  that  when  to  tell  the  truth  in  a  court  of  justice  would  be  bene 
ficial  to  him  it  is  often  almost  impossible  to  induce  him  to  fully  declare 
it  because  he  does  not  believe  that  there  can  be  any  association  of 
rectitude  with  his  interests.  When  a  Chinaman  is  presented  before 
a  judge  or  a  jury,  and  there  is  no  testimony  explanatory  of  his  declara 
tions,  it  is  often  impossible  to  reach  a  satisfactory  conclusion.  It  is 
generally  difficult  to  discern  which  of  two  contesting  Mongolians 
approaches  to  the  truth.  They  have  absolutely  no  conception  of  their 
duties  in  this  regard. 

When  acting  in  an  official  capacity  upon  a  certain  occasion  I  was 
called  into  court  to  attend  to  the  public  interest  in  a  small  case.  A 
battery  charge  was  involved.  The  prosecutor  and  the  defendant  were 
Chinamen.  The  former's  face  was  discolored,  showing  evidence  of 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  99 

injurious  contact.  He  had  been  somewhat  disfigured.  He  claimed 
that  a  member  of  another  company,  a  Chinaman,  had  attacked  him 
upon  the  public  street.  A  trial  was  had.  As  prosecuting  officer  I 
introduced  the  complaining  Chinaman  and  six  other  Chinese  witnesses. 
The  defendant's  counsel  asked  each  of  them  to  which  company  he 
belonged,  and  each  swore  that  he  was  a  member  of  the  company  of 
the  prosecuting  witness.  Then  came  the  defendant,  and  he  introduced 
six  Chinese  witnesses ;  each  of  whom  was  a  member  of  the  company 
to  which  the  defendant  belonged,  and  each  swore  absolutely  and  posi 
tively  that  defendant  was  not  present  when  the  assault  was  said  to 
have  taken  place,  though  the  other  seven  witnesses  had  testified 
emphatically  that  defendant  committed  the  battery. 

I  mention  this  as  illustrating  the  proposition  that  a  Chinaman 
will  swear  according  to  the  interest  and  orders  of  his  company.  If 
there  is  litigation  among  Chinamen,  and  there  are  75  Chinese  wit 
nesses  upon  one  side  and  75  Chinese  witnesses  upon  the  other  side, 
upon  investigation  you  will  find  that  all  the  plaintiff's  witnesses  be 
long  to  one  company  and  that  all  the  defendant's  witnesses  recognize 
another  company.  Their  habits  and  customs  are  not  such  as  to  make 
them  either  valuable  or  tolerable  residents  of  any  civilized  community. 

Upon  another  occasion  I  was  called  upon  to  prosecute  a  China 
man  for  the  murder  of  another  Chinaman.  I  succeeded  in  procuring 
a  conviction.  The  court  believed  that  there  had  been  an  error  in  the 
trial,  some  misruling  upon  a  question  connected  with  the  testimony, 
and  a  new  trial  was  granted. 

When  the  time  for  the  new  trial  approached  I  visited  the  China 
man  representing  the  company  to  which  the  decedent  had  pertained, 
and  told  him  that  I  desired  the  witnesses  who  had  been  present  at  the 
former  trial  to  appear  once  more  in  court  as  witnesses.  He  shook 
his  head  and  said  that  they  could  not  be  found. 

I  said  "  Where  are  they  ?  "  He  did  not  know.  I  pressed  him 
and  he  advised  me  to  dismiss  the  case.  After  considerable  interroga 
tion  I  arrived  at  this  state  of  facts :  The  Chinaman  who  had  been 
killed  was  a  member  of  the  company  which  the  man  with  whom  I  was 
conversing  represented,  and  the  Chinaman  who  did  the  killing  was  a 
member  of  another  company;  and  the  two  companies  came  together 
and  appraised  the  dead  Chinaman  at  $1,000,  and  had  passed  the  money 
and  the  receipts.  Therefore  the  witnesses  could  no  longer  be  found. 

Is  it  for  a  class  of  people  to  whom  this  is  an  every-day  and 
monotonous  transaction  that  we  are  asked  to  sacrifice  the  wishes  and 
the  comfort  of  the  citizens  of  the  American  Republic? 

Mr.  President,  I  am  as  charitable  and  kind-hearted,  I  trust,  as 
any  man  who  is  within  this  Chamber  or  elsewhere.  I  would  as 
quickly,  I  hope,  as  any  one  else  put  myself  out  to  alleviate  suffering 
and  perform  those  duties  which  charity  enjoins  upon  a  Christian.  But 
I  am  confronted  with  a  situation  that  threatens  ruin  to  my  own  peo 
ple  ;  and  when  I  am  called  upon  to  choose  between  them  and  an  alien 
race  incapable  of  virtue  and  unappreciative  of  vice,  then  I  stand  by 
my  own  hearthstone  and  guard  my  own  home. 

Senators  who  know  but  little  of  these  things  say  much  to  the 
effect  that  we  have  been  disregarding  a  treaty.  Mr.  President,  the 
Chinese  Government  has  never  in  good  faith  attempted  to  stand  by 
its  treaty.  When  it  appeared  to  this  Government  and  to  the  Congress 


100  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

of  the  United  States  that  the  treaty  that  had  been  adopted  and  ratified 
in  1880  needed  revision,  there  was  an  effort  made  by  us  to  accomplish 
such  revision.  As  stated  in  the  very  able  message  of  Mr.  Cleveland, 
presented  to  this  body  when  he  was  formerly  President  of  the  United 
States,  this  Government,  through  its  commissioners,  prepared  a  treaty 
which  was  acceptable  to  the  Chinese  minister  here,  and  which  every 
one  supposed  would  be  ratified.  This  proposed  engagement  was  sub 
mitted  to  the  Chinese  Government  and  there  it  rested  for  a  period  of 
about  six  months  without  any  action  whatever. 

Our  minister  repeatedly  and  urgently  called  the  attention  of  the 
imperial  government  to  the  pendency  of  that  treaty,  to  the  demand 
upon  the  part  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  that  it  should  be 
acted  on.  No  response  whatever  was  given.  Thereupon  Mr.  Cleve 
land  signed  the  act  of  1888  and  sent  to  Congress  the  message  to  which 
I  have  referred  upon  another  occasion. 

It  is  as  follows: 

To  the  Congress: 

I  have  this  day  approved  House  bill  No.  11,336,  supplementary  to  an  act 
entitled  "An  act  to  execute  treaty  stipulations  relating  to  Chinese,"  approved  the 
6th  day  of  May,  1882. 

It  seems  to  me  that  some  suggestions  and  recommendations  may  properly 
accompany  my  approval  of  this  bill. 

Its  object  is  to  more  effectually  accomplish  by  legislation  the  exclusion 
from  this  country  of  Chinese  laborers. 

The  experiment  of  blending  the  social  habits  and  mutual  race  idiosyncracies 
of  the  Chinese  laboring  classes  with  those  of  the  great  body  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States  has  been  proved  by  the  experience  of  twenty  years, 
and  ever  since  the  Burlingame  treaty  of  1868,  to  be  in  every  sense  unwise, 
impolitic  and  injurious  to  both  nations.  With  the  lapse  of  time  the  necessity 
for  its  abandonment  has  grown  in  force,  until  those  having  in  charge  the 
government  of  the  respective  countries  have  resolved  to  modify  and  sufficiently 
abrogate  all  those  features  of  prior  conventional  arrangements  which  permitted 
the  coming  of  Chinese  laborers  to  the  United  States. 

In  modification  of  prior  conventions  the  treaty  of  November  17,  1880,  was 
concluded,  whereby,  in  the  first  article  thereof,  it  was  agreed  that  the  United 
States  should  at  will  regulate,  limit,  or  suspend  the  coming  of  Chinese 
laborers  to  the  United  States,  but  not  absolutely  prohibit  it;  and  under  this 
article  an  act  of  Congress  approved  on  May  6,  1882  (see  volume  22,  page  58, 
Statutes  at  Large),  and  amended  July  5,  1884  (volume  23,  page  115,  Statutes 
at  Large),  suspended  for  ten  years  the  coming  of  Chinese  laborers  to  the 
United  States,  and  regulated  the  going  and  coming  of  such  Chinese  laborers 
as  were  at  that  time  in  the  United  States. 

It  was,  however,  soon  made  evident  that  the  mercenary  greed  of  the  parties 
who  were  trading  in  the  labor  of  this  class  of  the  Chinese  population  was 
proving  too  strong  for  the  just  execution  of  the  law,  and  that  the  virtual 
defeat  of  the  object  and  intent  of  both  law  and  treaty  was  being  fraudulently 
accomplished  by  false  pretense  and  perjury,  contrary  to  the  expressed  will  of 
both  Governments. 

To  such  an  extent  has  the  successful  violation  of  the  treaty  and  the  laws 
enacted  for  its  execution  progressed  that  the  courts  of  the  Pacific  States  have 
been  for  some  time  past  overwhelmed  by  the  examination  of  cases  of  Chinese 
laborers  who  are  charged  with  having  entered  our  ports  under  fraudulent 
certificates  of  return  or  seek  to  establish  by  perjury  the  claim  of  prior  residence. 

Such  demonstration  of  the  inoperative  and  inefficient  condition  of  the 
treaty  and  law  has  produced  deep-seated  and  increasing  discontent  among  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  and  especially  with  those  resident  on  the  Pacific 
coast.  This  has  induced  me  to  omit  no  effort  to  find  an  effectual  remedy  for 
the  evils  complained  of,  and  to  answer  the  earnest  popular  demand  for  the 
absolute  exclusion  of  Chinese  laborers  having  objects  and  purposes  unlike  our 
own.  and  wholly  disconnected  with  American  citizenship. 


SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  101 

Aided  by  the  presence  in  this  country  of  able  and  intelligent  diplomatic 
and  consular  officers  of  the  Chinese  Government,  and  the  representations  made 
from  time  to  time  by  our  minister  in  China  under  instructions  of  the  Department 
of  State,  the  actual  condition  of  public  sentiment  and  the  status  of  affairs  in  the 
United  States  has  been  fully  made  known  to  the  Government  of  China. 

The  necessity  for  remedy  has  been  fully  appreciated  by  that  Government, 
and  in  August,  1886,  our  minister  at  Peking  received  from  the  Chinese  foreign 
office  a  communication  announcing  that  China,  of  her  own  accord  proposed 
to  establish  a  system  of  strict  and  absolute  prohibition  of  her  laborers,  under 
heavy  penalties,  from  coming  to  the  United  States,  and  likewise  to  prohibit  the 
return  to  the  United  States  of  any  Chinese  laborer  who  had  at  any  time  gone 
back  to  China  "in  order"  (in  the  words  of  the  communication)  "that  the 
Chinese  laborers  may  gradually  be  reduced  in  number  and  causes  of  danger 
averted  and  lives  preserved." 

This  view  of  the  Chinese  Government,  so  completely  in  harmony  with  that 
of  the  United  States,  was  by  my  direction  speedily  formulated  in  a  treaty  draft 
between  the  two  nations,  embodying  the  propositions  so  presented  by  the  Chinese 
foreign  office. 

The  deliberations,  frequent  oral  discussions,  and  correspondence  on  the 
general  questions  that  ensued  have  been  fully  communicated  by  me  to  the 
Senate  at  the  present  session,  and,  as  contained  in  Senate  Executive  Docu 
ment  O,  parts  i  and  2,  and  in  Senate  Executive  Document  No.  272,  may  be 
properly  referred  to  as  containing  a  complete  history  of  the  transaction. 

It  is  thus  easy  to  learn  how  the  joint  desires  and  unequivocal  mutual  under 
standing  of  the  two  Governments  were  brought  into  articulated  form  in  the  treaty 
which  after  a  mutual  exhibition  of  plenary  powers  from  the  respective  Govern 
ments  was  signed  and  concluded  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  the  United  States 
and  China  at  this  capital  on  March  12  last. 

Being  submitted  for  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  its  confirmation 
on  the  7th  day  of  May  last,  was  accompanied  by  two  amendments,  which  that 
body  ingrafted  upon  it. 

On  the  I2th  day  of  the  same  month  the  Chinese  minister,  who  was  the 
plenipotentiary  of  his  Government  in  the  negotiation  and  the  conclusion  of 
the  treaty,  in  a  note  to  the  Secretary  of  State  gave  his  approval  of  these 
amendments,  "  as  they  did  not  alter  the  terms  of  the  treaty,"  and  the  amend 
ments  were  at  once  telegraphed  to  China,  whither  the  original  treaty  had 
previously  been  sent  immediately  after  its  signature  on  March  12. 

On  the  I3th  day  of  last  month  I  approved  Senate  bill  No.  3304,  "to  prohibit 
the  coming  of  Chinese  laborers  to  the  United  States."  This  bill  was  intended 
to  supplement  the  treaty,  and  was  approved  in  the  confident  anticipation  of  an 
early  exchange  of  ratifications  of  the  treaty  and  its  amendments  and  the 
proclamation  of  the  same,  upon  which  event  the  legislation  so  approved  was  by 
its  terms  to  take  effect. 

No  information  of  any  definite  action  upon  the  treaty  by  the  Chinese 
Government  was  received  until  the  2ist  ultimo  —  the  day  the  bill  which  I 
have  just  approved  was  presented  to  me  —  when  a  telegram  from  our  minister 
at  Peking  to  the  Secretary  of  State  announced  the  refusal  of  the  Chinese 
Government  to  exchange  ratifications  of  the  treaty,  unless  further  discussion 
should  be  had  with  a  view  to  shorten  the  period  stipulated  in  the  treaty  for  the 
exclusion  of  Chinese  laborers,  and  to  change  the  conditions  agreed  on,  which 
should  entitle  any  Chinese  laborer  who  might  go  back  to  China  to  return  again 
to  the  United  States. 

By  a  note  from  the  charge  d'affaires  ad  interim  of  China  to  the  Secretary 
of  State,  received  on  the  evening  of  the  25th  ultimo  (a  copy  of  which  is  here 
with  transmitted,  together  with  the  reply  thereto),  a  third  amendment  is 
proposed  whereby  the  certificate,  under  which  any  departing  Chinese  laborer 
alleging  the  possession  of  property  in  the  United  States  would  be  enabled  to 
return  to  this  country,  should  be  granted  by  the  Chinese  consul  instead  of  the 
United  States  collector,  as  had  been  provided  in  the  treaty. 

The  obvious  and  necessary  effect  of  this  last  proposition  would  be  prac 
tically  to  place  the  execution  of  the  treaty  beyond  the  control  of  the  United 
States. 

Article  I,  of  the  treaty  proposed  to  be  so  materially  altered  had,  in  the 
course  of  the  negotiations,  been  settled  in  acquiescence  with  the  request  of  the 
Chinese  plenipotentiary  and  to  his  expressed  satisfaction. 


102  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

In  1886,  as  appears  in  the  documents  heretofore  referred  to,  the  Chinese 
foreign  office  had  formally  proposed  to  our  minister  strict  exclusion  of  Chinese 
laborers  from  the  United  States  without  limitation;  and  had  otherwise  and 
more  definitely  stated  that  no  term  whatever  for  exclusion  was  necessary,  for 
the  reason  that  China  would  of  itself  take  steps  to  prevent  its  laborers  from 
coming  to  the  United  States. 

In  the  course  of  the  negotiations  that  followed  suggestions  from  the  same 
quarter  led  to  the  insertion  in  behalf  of  the  United  States  of  a  term  of  "  thirty 
years,"  and  this  term,  upon  the  representations  of  the  Chinese  plenipotentiary, 
was  reduced  to  "twenty  years,"  and  finally  so  agreed  upon. 

Article  II  was  wholly  of  Chinese  origin,  and  to  that  alone  owes  its  presence 
in  the  treaty. 

And  it  is  here  pertinent  to  remark  that  everywhere  in  the  United  States 
laws  for  the  collection  of  debts  are  equally  available  to  all  creditors  without 
respect  to  race,  sex,  nationality,  or  place  of  residence,  and  equally  with  the 
citizens  or  subjects  of  the  most  favored  nations  and  with  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  recovery  can  be  had  in  any  court  of  justice  in  the  United  States 
by  a  subject  of  China,  whether  of  the  laboring  or  any  other  class. 

No  disability  accrues,  from  nonresidence  of  a  plaintiff  whose  claim  can  be 
enforced  in  the  usual  way  by  him  or  his  assignee  or  attorney  in  our  courts  of 
justice. 

In  this  respect  it  can  not  be  alleged  that  there  exists  the  slightest  discrimina 
tion  against  Chinese  subjects,  and  it  is  a  notable  fact  that  large  trading  firms  and 
companies  and  individual  merchants  and  traders  of  that  nation  are  profitably 
established  at  numerous  points  throughout  the  Union,  in  whose  hands  every 
claim  transmitted  by  an  absent  Chinaman  of  a  just  and  lawful  nature  could  be 
completely  enforced. 

The  admitted  and  paramount  right  and  duty  of  every  government  to  exclude 
from  its  borders  all  elements  of  foreign  population  which  for  any  reason  retard 
its  prosperity  or  are  detrimental  to  the  moral  and  physical  health  of  its  people, 
must  be  regarded  as  a  recognized  canon  of  international  law  and  intercourse. 
China  herself  has  not  dissented  from  this  doctrine,  but  has,  by  the  expressions 
to  which  I  have  referred,  led  us  confidently  to  rely  upon  such  action  on  her  part 
in  co-operation  with  us  as  would  enforce  the  exclusion  of  Chinese  laborers  from 
our  country. 

This  co-operation  has  not,  however,  been  accorded  us.  Thus  from  the 
unexpected  and  disappointing  refusal  of  the  Chinese  Government  to  confirm  the 
acts  of  its  authorized  agent  and  to  carry  into  effect  an  international  agreement, 
the  main  feature  of  which  was  voluntarily  presented  by  that  Government  for  our 
acceptance,  and  which  had  been  the  subject  of  long  and  careful  deliberation, 
an  emergency  has  arisen,  in  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States  is 
called  upon  to  act  in  self-defense  by  the  exercise  of  its  legislative  power.  I  can 
not  but  regard  the  expressed  demand  on  the  part  of  China  for  a  re-examination 
and  renewed  discussion  of  the  topics  so  completely  covered  by  mutual  treaty 
stipulations  as  an  indefinite  postponement  and  practical  abandonment  of  the 
objects  we  have  in  view,  to  which  the  Government  of  China  may  justly  be  con 
sidered  as  pledged. 

The  facts  and  circumstances  which  I  have  narrated  lead  me,  in  the  per 
formance  of  what  seems  to  me  to  be  my  official  duty,  to  join  the  Congress  in 
dealing  legislatively  with  the  question  of  the  exclusion  of  Chinese  laborers,  in 
lieu  of  further  attempts  to  adjust  it  by  international  agreement. 

But  while  thus  exercising  our  undoubted  rights  in  the  interests  of  our  peo 
ple  and  for  the  general  welfare  of  our  country,  justice  and  fairness  seem  to 
require  that  some  provision  should  be  made  by  act  or  joint  resolution,  under 
which  such  Chinese  laborers  as  shall  actually  have  embarked  on  their  return  to 
the  United  States  before  the  passage  of  the  law  this  day  approved,  and  are  now 
on  their  way,  may  be  permitted  to  land,  provided  they  have  duly  and  lawfully 
obtained  and  shall  present  certificates  heretofore  issued  permitting  them  to 
return  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  existing  law. 

Nor  should  our  recourse  to  legislative  measures  of  exclusion  cause  us  to 
retire  from  the  offer  we  have  made  to  indemnify  such  Chinese  subjects  as  have 
suffered  damage  through  violence  in  the  remote  and  comparatively  unsettled 
portions  of  our  country  at  the  hands  of  lawless  men.  Therefore  I  recommend 
that,  without  acknowledging  legal  liability  therefor,  but  because  it  was  stipu 
lated  in  the  treaty  which  has  failed  to  take  effect,  and  in  a  spirit  of  humanity 
befitting  our  nation,  there  be  appropriated  the  sum  of  $276,619.75,  payable  to 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  103 

the  Chinese  minister  at  this  capital,  on  behalf  of  his  Government,  as  full 
indemnity  for  all  losses  and  injuries  sustained  by  Chinese  subjects  in  the  manner 
and  under  the  circumstances  mentioned. 

GROVER  CLEVELAND. 
EXECUTIVE  MANSION,  October  i,  1888. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  In  that  message  the  President  tersely 
states  ample  reasons  for  the  belief  that  China  had  absolutely  refused 
to  enter  into  any  stipulation  with  us  at  all.  She  stood  without  action, 
inert  and  impassive,  determined  to  do  nothing  that  we  wished  her  to 
do,  defiant  and  morose.  It  is  true  that  a  treaty  is  an  obligation,  bind 
ing  at  least  in  the  forum  of  the  national  conscience ;  but  it  is  not  a 
fact  that  a  nation  is  bound  to  stand  by  a  treaty  forever,  and  to  see  its 
own  interests  and  the  interests  which  it  was  organized  to  conserve 
sacrificed  upon  the  altar  of  sentimentality. 

When  China  refused  to  reasonably  modify  this  treaty;  when  her 
people,  in  violation  of  the  terms  of  a  preceding  compact  were  con 
stantly  coming  to  this  country,  intruding  upon  shores  upon  which  if 
was  not  lawful  for  them  to  tread;  when  Chinese  officials  aided  and 
abetted  these  transactions,  then  I  assert  the  time  had  come  when  it 
was  but  justice  to  our  own  citizens  to  enact  such  laws  as  might  be 
deemed  adequate  for  our  defense.  Under  this  condition  of  affairs 
the  statutes  mentioned  were  passed — lawfully,  justly,  and  properly. 

No  doubt  exists  of  the  power  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  to  legislate  notwithstanding  a  treaty.  It  is  true  that  the  power 
should  be  rarely  exercised.  It  is  a  fact,  Mr.  President,  that  we  should 
under  all  circumstances  endeavor  to  adhere  to  the  engagements  which 
we  may  have  made.  But  there  are  times,  as  every  writer  upon  such 
subjects  concedes,  when  a  nation  is  justified  in  paying  no  further 
attention  to  a  treaty.  One  of  these  occasions,  recognized  by  all  authori 
ties  upon  international  law,  is  disclosed  when  one  party  violates 
the  terms  of  a  treaty.  Such  behavior  warrants  the  other  party  in 
regarding  the  contract  terminated. 

The  principal  object  of  the  legislation  which  is  now  sought  to  be 
enacted  here,  and  of  the  legislation  which  we  have  heretofore  adopted, 
has  been  to  prevent  the  coming  to  this  country  of  the  Chinamen  whom 
China  herself  admitted  should  not  be  permitted  among  us,  but  who 
have  been  allowed  to  come  by  China  in  spite  of  the  solemn  obligations 
into  which  that  nation  entered.  This  violation  of  treaty  stipulations 
by  China  was  long  anterior  to  the  legislation  of  1888,  was  provocative 
of  that  legislation,  and  made  that  necessary. 

Therefore,  Mr.  President,  this  Government  stands  absolutely 
acquitted  of  the  accusations  made  against  it.  It  is  not  with  good  grace 
that  these  charges  should  be  made  upon  this  floor  by  Senators  who 
themselves  have  participated  in  the  enactment  of  the  legislation  which 
they  now  denounce.  If  Senators  have  done  nothing  worse  and  nothing 
which  will  more  subject  them  to  criticism  than  that  which  they  per 
formed  in  voting  for  the  legislation  sought  by  the  people  of  the 
Pacific  Coast,  they  will  never  have  occasion  for  sorrow  or  pain. 

This  act,  Mr.  President,  as  I  have  said,  is  justifiable  where  it 
demands  testimony  other  than  Chinese ;  with  reference  to  the  burden 
of  proof  it  is  also  justifiable.  It  is  a  familiar  principle  that  the  party 
who  has  in  his  possession  the  best  evidence  must  produce  it  upon 
demand.  A  Chinaman  defends  himself  by  saying :  "  You  can  not 
deport  me  because  I  have  a  good  excuse  for  non-registration."  If  so, 


104  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

he  must  establish  that  fact.  It  is  impossible  for  this  Government  to 
prove  the  contrary  at  the  outset.  If  every  Chinaman  in  California  is 
presumed  to  have  registered,  or  if  he  concedes  that  he  did  not  regis 
ter,  if  he  is  presumed  to  have  a  good  excuse  for  non-registration  it 
will  be  impossible  for  the  Government  ever  to  make  a  case  for 
deportation  against  a  Chinaman. 

If,  in  defiance  of  the  opinion  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  you  treat  this  as  penal  legislation,  if  you  declare  that  it  is  in 
effect  the  enactment  of  a  penal  statute,  and  that  the  Chinaman  is 
entitled  to  the  presumption  of  innocence  so  called  as  to  each  and  every 
proposition  necessary  to  be  established  in  order  to  justify  his  deporta 
tion,  then  he  must  be  presumed  to  be  a  person  exempt  from  liability 
to  deportation,  and  this  presumption  can  not  be  rebutted  no  matter 
what  the  merits  may  be. 

When  once  the  certificate  provided  for  by  this  statute  has  been 
given  to  a  Chinaman  he  has  in  his  pocket  the  very  best  evidence  that 
he  can  have  and  the  best  evidence  that  exists  of  his  right  to  be  in 
the  country,  and  he  can  readily  supply  it. 

There  is  no  disgrace  in  the  photograph  requirement  of  this  bill. 
Is  it  a  disgrace  to  have  our  photographs  taken?  Have  not  Senators 
at  some  time  in  their  lives  been  proud  and  happy  when  asked  for  a 
photograph?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  some  candidates  for  office  occa 
sionally  send  photographs  about  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  their 
features?  Is  it  not  true  throughout  all  the  avenues  of  business,  over 
which  today  travel  the  most  enterprising  and  energetic  of  our  people, 
that  the  photograph  is  used  by  the  man  who  wishes  to  make  himself 
known? 

In  our  daily  transactions  we  subject  ourselves  to  personal  descrip 
tions.  I  have  in  my  pocket  a  railroad  ticket  which  I  bought  in 
Los  Angeles  for  the  round  trip  from  that  city  to  Washington,  and 
thence  to  California,  and  upon  which  ticket,  by  means  of  certain  desig 
nations  made  by  punching  the  ticket,  I  am  described.  I  never  thought 
of  saying  to  the  railroad  corporation  selling  the  ticket  that  it  had  no 
authority  to  so  punch  the  same  as  to  indicate  whether  I  am  tall  or 
short,  stout  or  otherwise ;  whether  I  am  old  or  young,  whether  I  have 
gray  or  black  hair,  or  whether  my  head  is  bald.  Yet  they  took  that 
liberty  with  me,  and  I  did  not  feel  offended ;  and  the  Chinaman,  whose 
tender  heart  seems  to  appeal  with  such  effect  to  Senators  here,  is  the 
last  man  on  earth  to  be  insulted  because  he  is  asked  to  sign  his  name 
and  have  his  personal  appearance  taken  down. 

I  have  spoken  to  many  Chinamen  with  reference  to  this  registra 
tion,  and  they  have  uniformly  told  me  that  they  were  willing  to  reg 
ister,  but  that  their  leaders  had  informed  them  or  advised  them  not  to 
do  so.  By  their  leaders,  they  refer  to  the  Six  Companies — those  won 
derful  organizations,  whose  exact  constitution  is  unknown,  as  far  as  I 
am  aware,  to  any  of  us.  Today  the  Chinamen  in  California  are,  in 
my  opinion,  anxious  for  any  opportunity  to  register  under  the  pro 
visions  of  this  bill.  They  do  not  detect  any  hardship. 

Primarily  my  disposition  was  to  oppose  the  granting  of  any  exten 
sion  whatever ;  I  believed  that  when  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
had  enacted  a  measure  which  was  approved  by  the  Executive,  and 
when  the  supreme  tribunal,  whose  organization  fitted  it  for  a  final 
adjudication  of  the  issue,  have  held  that  that  legislation  was  valid  and 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  105 

constitutional,  it  should  have  been  enforced ;  but  I  found  that  the 
temper  and  desires  of  the  majority  of  the  American  people  were  in 
favor  of  an  extension,  and  1  have  not  therefore  hesitated  to  come 
here  and  to  advocate  the  adoption  of  this  bill. 

I  doubt  whether  in  the  second  section  the  definition  of  the  word 
"  laborer  "  is  as  broad  as  it  should  be.  I  would  rather  define  laborer 
as  meaning  all  those  who  are  not  expressly  permitted  to  land.  I 
would  rather,  perhaps,  amend  the  bill  for  the  purpose  of  perfecting 
it  in  one  or  two  respects,  but  I  am  satisfied  that  in  these  last  hours,  of 
the  session  there  is  nothing  to  do  but  to  pass  it  as  it  has  come  here. 

There  is  a  provision  that  the  parties  may  go  before  a  United 
States  judge,  and  it  is  my  opinion  that  there  should  have  been  added 
"  the  judge  of  a  Territory,"  it  having  been  held  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  vs.  McAllister, 
141  U.  S.,  that  a  judge  of  a  Territory  is  not  a  United  States  judge, 
but  we  shall  probably  be  able  to  supplement  that  later  on  if  necessity 
arises.  Hence  I  have  presented  no  amendment. 

While  I  thoroughly  agree  with  the  Senator  from  Washington 
[Mr.  SQUIRE]  that  there  should  be  an  appropriation  to  carry  out  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  yet  I  do  not  believe  it  advisable  to  submit  that 
amendment  now,  for  the  reason  assigned  with  reference  to  the  other 
amendments.  Therefore  I  shall  vote  for  the  bill  as  it  stands. 

Let  me  say  to  those  who  for  whatsoever  reason  see  fit  to  stand 
here  as  the  advocates  of  those  people,  against  whom  the  citizens  of 
the  State  of  California,  regardless  of  party  and  with  astounding 
unanimity,  protest  that  if  they  defeat  this  bill  they  leave  the  matter 
standing  in  that  State  thus :  Today  Chinamen  are  in  hiding,  they  are 
in  the  willow  patches,  the  marshes,  and  in  the  hills  seeking  to  avoid 
the  enforcement  of  the  law  which  is  still  in  effect,  and  if  those  who 
feel  friendly  disposed  toward  the  Chinese  desired  to  do  something  to 
relieve  their  present  condition  let  me  remind  them,  in  all  earnestness 
and  with  the  utmost  sincerity,  that  they  should  at  once  desist  from 
their  efforts  to  repeal  the  wise  legislation  upon  this  subject  heretofore 
passed.  The  enactment  now  desired  is  an  extraordinarily  liberal 
measure.  When  100,000,  perhaps  200,000,  members  of  an  alien  race, 
permitted  to  be  within  the  confines  of  this  Republic,  defy  our  laws  and 
boldly  announce  that  they  will  not  obey  the  statute,  I  think  they 
should  be  well  satisfied  if  this  Government  permits  them  an  oppor 
tunity  to  do  that  which  they  should  have  done  long  ago. 

Senators  speak  of  the  imprisonment  of  these  Chinamen.  How 
can  a  man  be  deported  unless  there  is  some  harshness  used  with  refer 
ence  to  him?  The  necessity  of  his  deportation  being  settled  by  the 
Government,  and  the  power  conceded  and  affirmed  by  the  highest 
tribunal  which  may  pass  upon  it,  there  remains  nothing  for  the  Gov 
ernment  to  do  but  to  execute  its  well-considered  edict,  and  in  execut 
ing  it,  in  deporting  him,  if  the  Chinaman  will  not  go  of  his  own  motion, 
if  he  must  be  compelled  to  go,  it  may  be  that  the  maxim  molliter 
manus  imposuit  should  apply  to  him,  but  there  must  be  some  force 
used,  as  little  as  may  be,  but  he  must  be  taken ;  the  marshal  must  not 
be  required  to  keep  him  in  his  parlor,  but  when  once  sentenced,  when 
once  ordered  deported,  then  the  day  of  grace  has  passed  and  there  is 
nothing  to  do  but  to  execute  the  order. 

"  But  you   deny  the  right  of    habeas  corpus,"    says    somebody. 

8 


106  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Where  do  we  deny  it?  There  is  no  appeal,  says  another.  Is  there 
anything  wonderful  with  reference  to  the  denial  of  an  appeal?  In 
some  tribunal  must  be  lodged  the  power  to  finally  adjudicate  every 
question.  It  is  of  no  moment,  constitutionally  considered,  whether  in 
such  a  case  as  this  the  ultimate  power  is  vested  in  a  judge  of  the 
United  States  district  court  or  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  In  each  case  it  is  within  the  power  of  Congress,  and  if  each 
one  of  these  Chinamen  were  given  an  opportunity  to  enable  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  to  pass  upon  a  simple  question  of 
fact  there  would  arise  the  necessity  of  creating  a  thousand  tribunals 
with  the  result  that  the  legislation  could  not  be  enforced. 

Senators  speak  of  the  danger  of  men  being  deported  who  should 
not  be.  What  tribunal  more  safe  than  that  over  which  a  United  States 
judge  presides?  If  we  eliminate  the  court,  and  refer  to  it  the  judge 
alone,  nevertheless  he  is  the  same  conscientious  officer  in  whatever 
part  of  this  Republic  he  may  be.  He  has  been  selected  by  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  and  his  nomination  confirmed  by  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States.  The  judge  of  a  United  States  court  has  been 
made  the  arbiter  with  the  full  knowledge  upon  the  part  of  Congress 
that  in  no  other  hands  can  the  authority  be  more  safely  lodged;  and 
when  once  a  Chinaman  is  found  unregistered,  whose  duty  it  was  to 
register  under  the  provisions  of  the  act,  he  is  subject  to  be  deported. 
Then  why,  let  me  ask,  should  there  be  any  further  steps,  any  further 
delay,  any  appeal  bonds,  or  why  permit  the  release  of  one  admittedly 
not  entitled  to  be  at  large  within  the  United  States  ? 

Some  one  has  said  an  American,  a  white  man,  might  be  arrested 
under  this  law.  Mr.  President,  yes,  it  may  be  that  an  offitcer  of  the 
law  might  take  a  white  man  and  bring  him  before  a  United  States 
judge  and  that  the  United  States  judge  might  decide  him  to  be  a 
Chinaman.  But  are  we  to  suppose  that  our  tribunals  have  become  so 
incompetent,  so  foolish,  so  corrupt  ?  Are  we  to  indulge  in  a  presump 
tion  against  the  officers  of  our  Government,  in  whom  we  have  our 
selves  lodged  this  power?  Are  we  to  assume  that  they  are  incapable 
of  exercising  their  authority,  either  reasonably  or  honestly?  There  is 
no  danger,  Senators,  of  the  abuse  of  power  in  this  case.  No  such  in 
stance  has  ever  arisen  or  will  arise. 

There  is  no  disposition  upon  the  part  of  the  people  of  the  State 
of  California  to  misuse  authority,  or  to  ill  treat  Chinamen,  or  to  do 
anything  else  than  to  live  within  the  pale  of  the  law.  The  people  of 
California  appealed  to  Congress,  and  not  in  vain,  for  the  enactment  of 
the  measure  to  which  this  is  an  amendment.  It  was  not  their  fault 
that  the  trouble  was  not  settled,  but  it  was  because  of  the  turpitude 
of  those  whose  obligation  it  was  to  register ;  and  now  that  they  mani 
fest  a  disposition  to  register,  and  while  we  accord  them  the  privilege 
— and  whether  they  demand  it  or  not,  it  is  certainly  a  gratuity  on  our 
part — let  us  not  hesitate  to  incorporate  in  the  enactment  such  pjo- 
visions  which  will  make  it  efficacious  and  final. 

No  hardship  will  be  done.  The  Chinese  will  seek  and  be  sought 
by  the  officers  whose  duty  it  is  to  register  them,  and  they  will  register, 
placing  their  names  and  their  photographs  on  record.  No  better  cre 
dentials  can  the  Chinese  have  to  defend  their  right  to  stay  within  this 
country  than  the  photograph  and  the  certificate.  These  will  constitute 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  107 

their  protection.  It  will  guard  their  interests  as  well  as  the  interests 
of  the  people. 

We  know,  notwithstanding  the  legislation  which  has  been  had 
here,  that,  although  thousands  of  Chinamen  have  gone  home,  yet  that 
population  has  not  been  reduced,  and  we  appreciate,  therefore,  that 
the  failure  to  reduce  it  under  such  circumstances  is  due  necessarily  to 
the  coming  into  this  country  of  Chinese  who  have  no  right  whatever 
to  be  here. 

The  Senator  from  Minnesota  [Mr.  DAVIS]  alluded  to  the  lan 
guage  of  the  act  signifying  that  certain  Chinamen  are  entitled  to  be 
here,  and  he  spoke  harshly  of  the  additional  burdens  imposed  upon 
them.  Shall  an  alien  within  the  United  States  refuse  to  register,  to 
give  us  his  name  if  we  see  fit  to  ask  it  of  him  ?  Is  it  undue  severity  to 
solicit  him  to  put  his  name  of  record  where  it  may  be  useful  to  us  and 
of  benefit  to  him  ?  Is  there  any  outrage  committed  when  going  to  the 
Republic  of  France  the  visitor  finds  that  he  must  record  his  name  ?  Is 
there  anything  outrageous  in  carrying  a  passport  and  having  it 
inspected?  Is  there  anything  vicious  in  legislation  which  demands 
that  when  a  reasonable  provision  is  made  with  reference  to  aliens  in 
this  country  that  that  provision  shall  be  enforced? 

This  is  not  legislation  in  any  manner  like  that  to  which  Senators 
have  alluded.  The  Jews  of  Russia  have  been  expelled  by  an  imperial 
order  without  any  reference  to  their  rights  or  any  opportunity  to  per 
form  any  rational  requirement  giving  them  the  privilege  of  remaining. 
The  revocation  of  the  edict  of  Nantes,  mentioned  by  the  Senator  from 
Minnesota,  and  kindred  harsh  assertions  of  power  were  all  peremp 
tory  mandates,  unconditional  and  unreasonable  orders  inhibiting  the 
presence  of  the  hated  individual  and  demanding  his  summary  expul 
sion.  But  this  nation  has  done  no  parallel  act. 

I  am  astonished  that  in  this  Chamber  a  Senator  should  rise  and 
declare  that  we  have  enacted  a  law  in  any  manner  similar  to  those 
commented  upon.  Such  statements  are  wholly  unsupported.  The 
power  which  we  have  invoked  is  the  power  of  sovereignty.  The 
Republic,  within  its  own  confines,  guarding  the  welfare  of  her  people 
and  discharging  that  trust  received  from  them,  and  which  must  be 
well  and  perfectly  discharged  if  she  shall  live  and  command  the 
respect  of  man,  has  simply  exacted  of  these  people  to  do  something 
involving  no  expense,  but  little  trouble,  and  no  disgrace.  This  demand 
of  the  sovereign  tolerating  their  presence  is  refused  and  they  declare 
they  will  not  comply.  Then  this  Government,  whose  laws  have  been 
repudiated  and  whose  authority  has  been  challenged,  merely  says  to 
those  who  have  thus  defied  her,  "  No  penalty  shall  be  inflicted  upon 
you  as  the  consequence  of  your  willful  transgressions,  except  this,  if 
you  will  not  obey  my  laws  you  shall  not  live  within  the  reach  of  their^ 
jurisdiction."  Surely  no  nation  can  be  asked  to  harbor  those  who 
boldly  refuse  to  acquiesce  in  reasonable  regulations ;  and  no  nation 
can  be  called  unjust  if  it  demands  that  those  who  so  refuse  shall  be 
driven  without  its  w-alls.  This  is  all  that  we  attempt  to  do.  How 
wanton,  then,  are  the  attacks  made  upon  the  friends  of  this  legisla 
tion. 

I  know  an  appeal  has  been  made  to  us  by  well-meaning  and  char 
itable  and  honest  people,  representing  a  portion  of  the  Christian  com 
munity  of  this  country.  But  these  good  folks  do  not  understand  the 


108  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

subject.  Some  time  ago  the  Senator  from  Oregon  [Mr.  DOLPH]  very 
well  expressed  the  situation  of  these  ladies  and  gentlemen,  and  ex 
plained  their  want  of  knowledge.  I  wish  the  light  of  Christianity 
might  penetrate  the  Chinese  heart  and  control  their  actions,  and  dic 
tate  to  them  the  proper  policy  to  pursue,  the  mode  of  life  to  follow. 
But  in  spite  of  all  that  has  been  said  to  the  contrary,  the  efforts  of  our 
missionaries  have  not  been  a  success.  Of  the  one  hundred  thousand 
Chinamen  who  dwell  in  this  country,  amidst  our  churches  and  our 
Christian  influence,  and  our  goodness,  and  our  piety,  how  many  are 
really  Christians? 

Some  of  them  go  to  Sunday-school,  and  their  presence  there  was 
well  explained  by  a  Chinese  interpreter  with  whom  I  was  once  ac 
quainted.  He  came  to  my  office  and  said,  "  I  can  not  act  longer  for 
you  or  the  county"  (I  was  then  a  prosecuting  officer,  and  had  used 
him  as  an  interpreter),  "because  I  am  going  to  China."  "Well,"  I 
said,  "  Jim,  will  you  return."  He  said,  "  No."  I  remarked,  "  You  are 
a  Christian,  are  you  not  ?  I  know  you  are  a  member  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
So-and-So's  Sunday-school."  He  said,  "Oh,  yes;  I  am  a  Christian 
here."  "  Well,"  I  said,  "  when  you  get  back  to  China,  will  you  not  be 
a  Christian  there?"  "Oh,  no,"  he  responded,  "you  know  there  are 
not  many  Christians  in  China,  but  this  is  a  Christian  country,  and  I 
like  to  do  everything  here  that  the  Christians  do.  I  am  a  Christian 
here,  but  when  I  go  back  to  China,  of  course,  I  shall  be  the  same  as 
the  Chinese  are  there."  So  that  his  theory  was  that  religion  was  a 
kind  of  state  institution,  which  it  was  his  duty  as  rather  a  good- 
natured  man  to  follow  while  he  was  here,  and  especially,  in  considera 
tion  of  observing  it,  he  was  able  to  get  an  education,  enabling  him  to 
speak  the  English  language. 

In  all  my  experience,  as  I  have  said — and  I  have  had  a  good  deal 
of  it — I  have  never  been  able  to  find  a  solitary  Chinaman  who,  in  my 
opinion,  was  a  bona  fide  Christian. 

When  journeying  here  the  other  day  from  the  city  of  Los  Angeles 
I  met  a  very  estimable  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  a  member  of 
the  Episcopal  Church,  and  he  told  me  that  he  had  gone  to  school  in 
New  England  many  years  ago  with  a  bright  young  Chinaman,  who 
had  been  graduated  and  who  remained  in  this  country  and  studied 
law  for  some  years,  and  was  a  member  of  a  Christian  denomination. 
He  went  to  church  here  very  regularly.  The  gentleman  with  whom 
I  was  conversing  said  he  heard  from  the  Chinese  student  soon  after 
his  arrival  in  China;  that  there  he  withdrew  his  claim  to  Christianity 
and  resumed  his  ancient  practices  and  donned  his  antediluvian  garb. 
What  the  reason  may  be  I  do  not  pretend  to  state.  My  trust  is  that 
at  some  date  the  Almighty  will  enlighten  these  people,  but  I  do  not 
wish  that  my  life  and  the  lives  of  those  whom  I  am  here  to  represent 
shall  pass  away  waiting,  waiting,  waiting  for  Divine  interposition  to 
make  possible  that  policy  which  is  advocated  by  the  opponents  of  this 
bill.  I  have  faith  that  the  change  will  come,  but  I  do  not  desire  that 
my  fellow-citizens  shall  be  offered  up  as  sacrifices,  and  unwilling  ones 
at  that,  while  we  are  pausing  for  the  accomplishment  of  a  miracle.  It 
is  our  plain  duty  to  legislate  upon  matters  as  they  stand. 

I  do  not  regard  as  sufficient  to  control  our  action  the  glowing 
protests  of  those  gentlemen  who,  standing  upon  a  lofty  pedestal  and 
free  from  the  presence  of  the  Chinese  curse  and  speaking  of  the 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  109 

rights  of  man,  seek  to  instruct  California  as  to  the  propriety  of  her 
conduct.  If  I  could  present  some  of  these  distinguished  gentlemen 
and  their  constituents  with  twenty-five  or  fifty  thousand  Chinamen,  I 
would  fold  my  cloak  and  watch  with  confidence  that  so  far  as  they 
are  concerned,  the  problem  would  soon  be  solved,  and  that  among 
them  I  would  find  my  most  enthusiastic  allies.  There  is  evidently  a 
want  of  education  upon  this  topic. 

This  is  not  a  party  question  in  California,  or  the  suggestion  of 
any  clique,  of  any  creed,  or  of  any  class  of  men.  It  is  the  universal 
judgment  of  an  intelligent  people.  One  hundred  and  fifty-four  thou 
sand  votes  against  eight  hundred  upon  a  secret  ballot  constitute  an  ex 
pression  the  like  of  which  can  not  be  recorded  in  any  State  of  this 
Union  upon  any  issue  or  alleged  issue. 

With  this  before  us,  with  the  knowledge  which  we  of  the  coast 
possess,  we,  the  representatives  of  that  section,  appeal  to  the  Senate 
and  to  Congress,  to  those  who  occupy  a  common  vantage  ground,  we 
appeal  to  them  to  do  that  justice  which  we  should  do  if  we  were  in 
their  position ;  to  treat  us  as  brethren  entitled  to  their  active  co-opera 
tion  in  our  struggle  of  self-defense. 

Senators  refer  to  the  possible  conduct  of  China  in  relation  to  our 
missionaries.  She  will  not,  Mr.  President,  take  any  course  differing 
from  that  already  adopted  because  of  this  measure.  I  am  willing 
speaking  for  myself,  that  she  should  ask  our  missionaries  in  China  to 
register  and  present  their  photographs.  What  an  outrage  would  thus 
be  perpetrated  on  the  missionary  who  has  gone  forth  prepared  to  die, 
ready  to  be  tied  to  the  stake  or  sliced  by  the  well-known  Chinese  slic 
ing  process !  Would  he  not  be  willing  to  stipulate  that  in  lieu  of  the 
dangers  which  he  supposed  he  might  meet,  he  should  be  called  upon  to 
sign  his  name  and  give  a  photograph  ? 

We  hear  that  there  is  danger  that  China  may  retaliate,  and  we  are 
told  "  Do  unto  others  as  you  would  have  others  do  unto  you."  Yes,  Mr. 
President,  let  China  require  every  American  within  her  walls  to  regis 
ter  and  present  his  photograph,  and  I  do  not  believe  one  will  be  found 
to  object.  Our  missionaries  will  not  defy  the  law  of  China,  and  China 
will,  in  that  event,  have  done  to  them  just  as  we  are  doing  to  her  sub 
jects,  and  no  American  will  be  silly  enough  to  protest  against  the 
regulation. 

Mr.  DOLPH.  Will  the  Senator  allow  me  to  ask  him  if  it  is 
not  true  that  every  American  citizen  in  China  is  compelled  to  register 
in  some  manner? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  DOLPH.  And  are  not  American  citizens  obliged  to  take  out 
some  evidence  of  their  right  to  stay  there? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  understand  so ;  but  I  am  speaking 
of  the  special  provisions  of  the  pending  bill.  My  understanding  is, 
though  I  am  not  prepared  to  give  the  terms  of  the  order,  that  much 
more  stringent  measures  are  enforced  in  China  than  here  in  that 
regard. 

The  Chinamen  at  the  World's  Fair,  one  of  whose  certificates  I 
have  in  my  pocket,  have  not  found  it  very  difficult  to  register  and 
present  their  photographs.  I  hold  in  my  hand  Mr.  Wee  Hay's  card 
and  his  photograph  and  the  various  tickets  appended  thereto.  He  is 
an  actor,  a  professional  man,  and  he  has  not  objected  to  furnishing 


110  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

his  photograph  so  far  as  I  have  heard.  In  fact  there  is  not,  as  I  said 
before,  a  single  Chinaman  in  the  State  of  California  who  on  personal 
grounds  objects  to  this  proposition. 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not  detain  the  Senate  further.  I  have  made 
these  remarks  because  it  has  seemed  to  me  that  opposing  Senators  have 
not  presented  this  question  upon  its  real  merits,  and  that  they  have 
misconceived  the  attitude  of  California  and  of  the  inhabitants  of  that 
State.  It  appears  to  me  that  if  Senators  resided  on  the  Pacific  coast 
for  even  a  brief  period  their  sentiments  would  be  identical  with  those 
of  their  own  flesh  and  blood  who,  brought  into  immediate  contact  with 
this  repellant  influence,  have  made  the  demands  which  I  am  attempting 
to  enforce.  The  legislation  proposed  is  wise,  necessary,  just.  The 
criticisms  which  I  have  sought  to  answer  are  the  outcome  of  a  total 
misapprehension  of  the  matter,  and  the  disasters  suggested  will  prove 
entirely  imaginative. 


I  V  £  R 


THE  TARIFF 


SPEECH  DELIVERED 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
Friday,   July   23,  1897. 

The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  report  of  the  committee  of  con 
ference  on  the  disagreeing  votes  of  the  two  Houses  on  the  bill  (H.  R.  379)  to 
provide  revenue  for  the  Government  and  to  encourage  the  industries  of  the 
United  States- 
Mr.  WHITE  said : 

Mr.  PRESIDENT:  As  we  are  approaching  the  termination  of  this 
discussion  and,  I  hope,  of  this  session,  I  deem  it  proper  to  present  a 
summary  of  the  situation,  which  may  possibly  be  of  some  value  to 
those  who,  unlike  certain  intimate  friends  of  mine  not  very  far  away, 
are  in  search  of  the  truth. 

While  a  great  deal  has  been  said  in  criticism  of  the  majority  of 
the  Finance  Committee,  I  wish  to  remark  for  myself,  and  I  know  my 
associates  agree  with  me,  that  if  our  opponents  have  taken  extreme 
measures,  the  fault  is  with  the  system  of  which  they  are  a  part  and 
of  the  policies  which  they  have  seen  fit  to  pursue. 

The  exclusion  of  the  minority  from  participancy  in  tariff  con 
ferences  is,  in  my  judgment,  a  grave  mistake.  I  believe  that  if  the 
minority  managers  had  been  permitted  to  be  present  and  to  actu 
ally  share  in  the  deliberations  of  this  conference,  much  good  would 
have  been  accomplished,  and  that  many  of  the  provisions  of  the  bill 
which  are  now  justly  subjected  to  criticism  would  have  been  other 
wise  framed  and  beneficially  altered. 

I  say  this  not  because  we  assume  the  possession  of  great  ability 
or  remarkable  attainments,  but  because  the  expression  of  divergent 
sentiment  often,  if  not  invariably,  leads  to  an  elucidation  of  the  situ 
ation  which  can  not  occur  when  the  proceeding  is  entirely  ex  parte. 

It  is  a  fact,  as  stated  by  the  Senator  from  Arkansas  [Mr. 
/ONES],  that  the  Democratic  conferees  had  nothing  at  all  to  do  with 
this  measure  in  conference,  and  I  am  gratified,  I  may  add,  that  I  can 
make  this  statement,  though  I  do  not  approve  of  the  method 
adopted.  Had  we  been  permitted  to  act,  some  of  the  articles  which 
the  Senate  placed  upon  the  free  list  and  which  were  dropped  out  by 
the  conferees  might  still  be  found  where  the  Senate  placed  them; 
injustice  elsewhere  might  have  been  avoided. 

Comments  have  been  made  upon  the  conduct  of  the  Republican 
managers  upon  the  part  of  the  Senate  because  it  is  said  they  did  not 
adhere  with  sufficient  pertinacity  to  the  amendments  which  the  Sen 
ate  voted  into  the  bill. 

The  managers  on  the  part  of  the  House  were  familiar  with  the 
proceedings  of  this  body.  They  knew  that  each  Republican  Senate 
manager  had  voted  against  free  matting  and  free  cotton  bagging 

111 


112  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

and  free  grain  bags.  The  manager  upon  the  part  of  the  House 
doubtless  said  to  the  manager  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  "  Mr.  Man 
ager,  surely  you  do  not  personally  believe  in  free  grain  bags,"  etc. 
Thereupon  the  manager  upon  the  part  of  the  Senate,  being  of  diplo 
matic  tendency  and  not  caring  to  commit  himself  particularly,  prob 
ably  replied,  "  Well,  I  am  instructed,  you  observe,  to  stand  by  this 
amendment;  further  than  this  I  have  nothing  to  say."  As  personal 
conviction  did  not  accompany  the  Senate  instructions,  it  is  not 
astonishing  that  the  consciences  of  our  Republican  managers  pre 
vailed  and  the  Senate  managers  fell  prone  by  the  wayside,  and  our 
amendments  with  them.  Our  sugar  amendments  inserted  by  Repub 
lican  votes  fared  better. 

This  is  a  subject  of  regret,  Mr.  President,  but  it  is  due  to  the 
vice  of  the  system.  For  instance,  the  Senate  decides  that  a  certain 
provision  ought  to  be  inserted  in  a  bill,  and  appoints  a  conferee  who 
has  voted  that  that  identical  item  ought  not  to  be  adopted.  This 
conferee,  thus  thinly  armored,  seeks  a  conflict  with  a  House  conferee 
who  is  not  only  instructed  the  other  way,  but  who  believes  the  other 
way,  and  whose  opinions  really  accord  with  the  personal  views  of  the 
Senate  conferee.  A  contest  of  that  kind  is  a  contest  only  in  name, 
and  the  result  will  always  be  as  it  has  been  in  this  instance.  The 
Senate  representative  will  give  way. 

I  hope  when  the  next  tariff  bill  is  framed  (and  I  am  sorry  that 
we  will  have  to  prepare  another  tariff  bill  soon)  that  the  defective 
practice  which  I  have  criticised  will  be  abandoned,  and  that  there 
will  be  a  real  conference,  as  there  is  with  reference  to  other  bills. 
In  that  way  we  may  be  able  to  obtain  the  legislation  which  the 
majority  of  each  body  actually  desires.  If  conferees  who  hold  a 
particular  political  tenet  wish  to  consult  privately,  they  can  do  so, 
but  all  real  conferences  should  be  truly  free. 

There  is  another  feature  of  this  case  that  ought  not  to  be  over 
looked.  Usually,  in  the  matter  of  large  appropriation  bills,  the  con 
ferees  agree  as  to  certain  matters  of  difference  and  report  the  same 
to  their  respective  bodies  for  action.  When  these  propositions  are 
concurred  in,  the  issues  involved  are  out  of  the  way. 

The  sword  is  not  held  over  the  head  of  anybody.  Finally  the 
whole  subject  is  reduced  to  perhaps  two  or  three  or  a  dozen  lead 
ing  items ;  everything  else  is  disposed  of.  Then  the  Senate  or  the 
House  is  in  a  condition  of  comparative  freedom  and  may  reject  the 
report  at  once  as  to  the  undecided  items  if  the  Senate  or  House,  as  the 
case  may  be,  does  not  approve  the  conduct  of  its  managers.  To 
illustrate :  If  the  Senate  managers  in  the  matter  of  this  bill  had 
reported  from  time  to  time  as  to  various  subjects  agreed  upon,  their 
suggestions  would  have  been  reduced  to  cotton  bagging,  cotton  ties, 
grain  bags,  matting,  etc.,  and  in  that  event  the  report  would  have  been 
remanded  to  conference  by  the  Senate. 

But  the  whole  bill  is  thrown  upon  us  by  design.  Each  Republi 
can  is  appealed  to.  It  is  conceded  that  he  has  been  outraged,  but  he 
is  required  to  take  the  measure  entire  or  to  reject  it.  He  can  not 
resist  the  importunities  and  demands  of  party  friends.  It  is  even  inti 
mated  that  if  the  conference  again  seizes  the  bill,  his  pet  provisions 
will  be  emasculated.  Hence  it  is  that  we  are  confronted  now  with 
a  situation  which  involves  the  necessity  of  the  repudiation  of  the 
entire  report  or  the  swallowing  of  many  an  obnoxious  item,  and  I 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  113 

know  my  Republican  friends  here  well  enough  to  assert,  in  view  of 
the  quantity  of  political  medicine  which  they  have  heretofore  will 
ingly  taken,  they  will  be  found  ready  to  absorb  this  dose,  and  will 
declare  that  they  like  it,  notwithstanding  the  taste. 

Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  say  a  word  in  relation  to  the  attitude 
of  the  Republican  party  when  the  extra  session  was  called.  The 
election  of  Mr  Cleveland  in  1892  was  generally  attributed  to  public 
disapprobation  of  the  unreasonable  and  extravagant  provisions  of 
the  McKinley  bill.  After  the  Chicago  convention  of  1896.  when  it 
was  learned  that  it  was  the  determination  of  the  controlling  element 
of  the  Democratic  party  to  adhere  to  the  bimetallic  traditions  of  that 
organization,  Gold  Democrats  flocked  to  the  standard  of  McKinley. 
Many  of  these  were  in  theory  free  traders.  As  far  as  they  had  any 
representation  in  either  branch  of  Congress  this  was  obviously  true. 
In  order  to  allay  the  fear  of  this  important  element  and  the  more 
numerous  conservative  Republicans  that  the  triumph  of  the  Repub 
lican  party  meant  high  tariff,  the  agents  of  the  national  committee  of 
that  organization  appeared  all  over  the  United  States,  assuring  the 
thousands  who  were  hostile  to  extravagant  rates  that  the  impositions 
of  the  McKinley  bill  would  not  be  repeated. 

This  view  obtained  until  after  the  election.  The  St.  Louis  plat 
form  carefully  avoided  indorsement  of  the  McKinley  bill.  The 
Speaker  of  the  House  and  other  dominating  Republican  influences 
furnished  numerous  intimations  that  after  all  a  very  moderate  tariff 
would  be  enacted.  It  was  common  talk  during  the  campaign  that 
permanency  was  preferable  to  unduly  high  and  short-lived  rates. 
Before  the  newly  elected  House  of  -  Representatives  convened,  the 
members  of  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee  of  the  old  House  were 
at  work  framing  a  bill.  This  measure  was  ready  for  the  novices  of 
the  Fifty-fifth  Congress.  Quite  a  percentage  of  the  present  House  of 
Representatives  never  served  in  Congress  before,  yet  they  were  not 
permitted  to  contribute  their  attainments  and  had  but  meager  oppor 
tunity  to  officially  communicate  the  wishes  of  their  constituents  to  the 
Ways  and  Means  Committee. 

The  extra  session  having  been  called,  these  lately  chosen  Rep 
resentatives  came  to  Washington.  They  were  not  appointed  upon 
committees,  they  were  not  informed  as  to  whether  they  would  be 
called  upon  to  serve  upon  any  important  committee.  When  the 
Speaker  was  urged  to  fill  the  committee  list,  he  declined.  There 
was  no  pretense  that  Congress  as  now  organized  might  not  go  on 
and  transact  any  business  legitimately  coming  before  it.  No  one 
pretended  to  say  that  if  a  bill  was  meritorious  and  ought  to  be 
passed  it  would  be  less  efficacious  if  enacted  at  this  session.  Many 
a  measure  of  vital  interest  to  our  constituents  has  passed  here  and 
is  somnolent  elsewhere. 

It  is  said  that  some  one  somewhere  who  has  power  to  enforce 
his  views  concerning  committee  appointments  dryly  remarked  that 
it  was  necessary  to  consider  the  qualifications  of  the  several  indi 
viduals  composing  the  flock.  This  authority,  whoever  he  may  be, 
well  knew  that  if  those  to  whom  he  referred  felt  independent,  if 
they  were  all  located  so  that  the  general  character  of  their  committee 
work  could  be  discerned,  they  would  be  less  embarrassed.  He  also 
knew  that  while  a  condition  of  expectancy,  or  doubt,  or  hope,  or  fear 
existed,  the  infirmities  of  subserviency  would  be  noticeable.  Hence 


114  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

the  failure  to  fill  committees.  This  condition  exists  today.  The 
present  bill  is  the  result  of  the  partisan  action  of  a  few  men.  It  is 
the  offspring-  of  the  trusts.  Its  flagitious  character  in  this  respect 
was  not  imparted  to  it  by  the  Senate.  The  inoculation  occurred  in 
the  first  draft.  It  appeared  here  bearing  a  luxuriant  growth  of 
"  combine  "  fungi. 

The  Republican  members  of  the  Finance  Committee,  to  their 
credit  be  it  said,  sought  to  improve  the  bill,  and  they  presented  a 
measure  to  the  Senate  containing  between  one  and  two  thousand 
amendments,  many  of  which  slightly  reduced  the  number  and  extent 
of  the  iniquities  proposed.  The  bill  was  finally  reported  to  the 
Senate.  The  astute  and  skilled  senior  Senator  from  Rhode  Island, 
whose  abilities  no  one  doubts,  and  whose  remarkable  familiarity  with 
tariff  schedules  excites  the  admiration  of  his  decided  opponents, 
thoroughly  appreciated  the  situation,  and  in  his  opening  address, 
delivered  May  25,  1897  (RECORD,  page  1553),  used  this  expression: 

The  majority  of  the  committee  believe  that  if  a  thorough  revision  of  our 
revenue  laws,  such  as  is  contemplated  by  the  House  bill,  is  necessary,  it  should 
be  carried  out  in  a  conservative  spirit,  and  that  such  a  moderate  and  reasonable 
measure  should  be  adopted  as  will  insure  a  much  greater  degree  of  permanence 
to  our  tariff  legislation.  Frequent  revisions  of  the  tariff  are  productive  of  long 
periods  of  uncertainty  and  arrested  development.  The  radical  change  in  policy 
in  1894  proved  disastrous  to  the  business  interests  of  the  country. 

It  was,  I  believe,  thoroughly  understood  throughout  the  country  in  the  last 
political  campaign  that  if  the  Republican  party  should  be  again  intrusted  with 
power,  no  extreme  tariff  legislation  would  follow. 

The  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  concurs  exactly  in  what  I  have 
said  to  the  effect  that  the  Republican  promise  was  that  resort  would 
not  be  had  to  extreme  rates.  He  continues : 

It  was  believed  that  in  the  changed  conditions  of  the  country  a  return  to 
the  duties  imposed  by  the  act  of  1890  would  not  be  necessary,  even  from  a  pro 
tective  standpoint.  It  was  with  these  facts  constantly  in  view  that  the  majority 
of  the  Finance  Committee  prepared  the  amendments  which  they  have  submitted 
for  your  consideration.  Nothing  could  be  more  conducive  to  the  return  and 
maintenance  of  real  prosperity  in  this  country  than  the  well-grounded  belief 
that  there  were  to  be  no  violent  changes  in  our  revenue  policy  for  some  years  to 
come. 

The  true  friends  of  a  protective  policy  do  not  insist  upon  extreme  rates,  or 
any  that  are  not  necessary  to  equalize  conditions.  While  it  is  true  that  rates 
above  this  line  are  often  inoperative,  yet  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  fur 
nish  needless  opportunities  for  destructive  attacks.  The  committee  believe  that 
in  the  reductions  they  have  suggested  from  the  rates  imposed  in  the  House  bill 
they  have  not  gone  in  any  instance  below  the  protective  point,  and  if  the  bill 
should  become  a  law  in  the  form  presented  by  them,  every  American  industry 
would  be  enabled  to  meet  foreign  competition  on  equal  terms ;  this  is,  so  far  as 
this  equality  can  be  secured  by  tariff  legislation.  The  rates  suggested  by  the 
committee's  amendments  are  considerably  below  those  imposed  by  the  House 
bill,  and  in  most  instances  below  those  contained  in  the  act  of  1890. 

Thus  spoke  the  Senator  who  at  that'  time  represented  the  Re 
publican  members  of  the  Committee  on  Finance.  These  were  his 
conservative  words ;  these  his  promises  of  conservative  action.  The 
result,  I  sorrow  to  say,  is  to  be  found  in  the  conference  report, 
and  shows  that  the  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  did  not  properly 
estimate  the  temper  of  his  associates  or  the  capacity  and  demands 
of  those  who  control  the  majority  on  this  floor. 

When  those  of  us  who  were  supposed  to  have  charge  of  the  bill 
upon  this  side  of  the  Chamber  heard  these  declarations  of  the  Senator 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


115 


from  Rhode  Island,  we  trusted  that  the  time  had  at  length  arrived 
when  cupidity  would  not  be  regnant  in  the  council  chambers  of  a 
Republican  tariff  committee,  and  we  hoped  that  the  solicitude  which 
possessed  us  all,  that  the  vast  outlay  known  to  have  been  made  by 
the  great  corporations  and  trusts  of  this  country  in  order  that  the 
Republican  party  should  succeed  during  the  last  campaign  was  to 
be  reimbursed  out  of  the  people's  pockets,  would  prove  groundless, 
and  that,  after  all,  those  who  made  this  speculation  would  fail  to 
realize  their  anticipations. 

I  regret  that  this  hope  proved  delusive.  It  is  with  pain  that  I 
concede  that  the  monetary  combinations  of  this  country  knew  what 
they  were  doing  when  they  invested  last  fall  in  the  Republican  party, 
and  it  is  with  pain  that  I  admit  that  they  will  not  only  enjoy  their 
principal,  but  that  compound  interest  at  extortionate  rates  will  con 
stitute  but  a  part  of  their  unholy  gain. 

Some  days  since  I  presented  a  table  showing  the  comparative 
ad  valorem  rates  of  the  Senate  and  House  bills  and  the  present 
laws  under  the  importations  of  1896.  While  changes  have  been  made, 
it  is  substantially  correct  now.  I  should  add,  Mr.  President,  that 
in  so  far  as  any  changes  are  to  be  noted,  they  tend  to  the  increase 
of  the  rates  in  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee  of  conference.  The 
table  is  as  follows : 

Table  showing  the  ad  valorem*  upon  the  importations  in  1896  of  each  of  the 

schedules. 


Values. 

Duties. 

Ad  valo 
rem. 

A.  —  Chemicals: 
1896 

$19,694,037.69 

$  5,619,239.63 

Per  cent. 
28  53 

Hous6 

26,876,772.62 

8,557,937.59 

31.84 

Senate                                          .    .. 

28,221,956.92 

8,601,857.91 

30.48 

B.—  Earths  : 
1896  

22,896,254.23 

8,006,839.71 

35 

House..           

23,264,869.38 

12,257,128.37 

52.64 

Senate.    .           

23,264,869.38 

12,277,993.59 

52.77 

C.—  Metals  : 
1896 

34,634,562.06 

13,197,312.72 

38.10 

House 

35,512,595.02 

17,246,685.54 

48.56 

Senate 

36,597,637.25 

17,283,467.96 

47.22 

D.—  Wood  : 
1896             .              

1,800,307.41 

413,727,50 

22.98 

House  

13,307,443,67 

2,213,330.92 

16,63 

Senate  

13,307,443.67 

1,955,418.55 

14.69 

E.—  Sugar: 

1896 

73  068  811.76 

29,910,703.55 

40.94 

House 

73  092  178.76 

51,970,910.54 

71.10 

Senate                               

73  092,178.76 

52,173,574.27 

71.38 

F.—  Tobacco: 
1896  

13,625,272.51 

14,859,117.02 

109.06 

House  '  

13,625,272.51 

22,352,697.34 

164.05 

Senate  

13,625,272.51 

15,962,979.85 

117.15 

G.  —  Agricultural  : 
1896 

35  077,980.62 

7,919,636.46 

22.58 

House..                   

38  873,592.01 

15,540,188.92 

40 

Senate         

46,362,671.78 

17,132,865.18 

36.95 

H.—  Spirits: 
1896 

11  270  965.24 

6,935,648.08 

61.54 

House 

11  940  732.20 

9,197,473.32 

77.03 

Senate..                    

11,856,658.95 

7,213,633.53 

60.84 

116 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


Table  showing  the  ad  valorem*  upon  the  importations  in  1896  of  each  of  the 

schedules.  —  Continued. 


Values. 

Duties. 

Ad  valo 
rem. 

I.  —  Cotton: 
1896  

21,279,498.43 

9,311,701.76 

43.75 

HoUS6 

21  279  498  43 

11  049  410  61 

51  92 

Senate                                        

21  279  498  43 

11  134  764  08 

52  33 

J.—  Flax  : 
1896          

29  756  631.02 

12  018  082.78 

40.38 

House         

42,880,772.00 

20  151  816  69 

46.94 

Senate  

31,986,109.02 

16  036,929  64 

50.14 

K.—  Wool  : 

1896 

48  352  049  90 

23  027  569  87 

47  62 

House                        

82  816  564  19 

72  800  400  92 

87  91 

Senate           ..          .         

82  816  564  19 

67  061  119  16 

80  98 

L.—  Silks: 
1896  

26,627,731.71 

12  504  006.17 

46.96 

House  

26  627  731.71 

14  208  435  32 

53.36 

Senate 

26  627  731  71 

14  195  205  82 

53  32 

M.  —  Pulp,  paper,  etc.  : 

1896 

5  599  939  55 

1  242  198  92 

22  18 

House                            .          ... 

7  122  543  61 

2  130  497  16 

29  91 

Senate             ..                 

5  599  839  45 

1  730  460  32 

30.92 

N.  —  Sundries  : 
1896          

42  895  050  21 

10  635  098  70 

24  79 

House  

55  895  082.59 

17  137  762.91 

30.66 

Senate  

73  425  164  35 

18,949,926  07 

25.81 

Total  —  1896  

386,579,182.34 

155,600,882.87 

40.25 

House  

473,115,648.70 

276,804,676.15 

58.51 

Senate  

488,063,596.37 

261,710,195.93 

53.62 

The  ad  valorem  rate  of  the  McKinley  bill  was  less  than  50 
per  cent. 

I  herewith  present  a  partial  list  of  articles  upon  which  a  duty  is 
to  be  levied  in  excess  of  the  McKinley  rates.  This  is  corrected  up 
to  today. 

The  following  list  shows  some  of  the  articles  on  which  the  duty 
imposed  by  the  Dingley  bill  exceeds  the  rate  in  the  McKinley  Act: 

A. 

Lactic  acid 

Gallic  acid. 

Perfumery. 

Alcoholic    compounds. 

Bleaching  powder. 

Borate  of  lime. 

Camphor. 

Chalk. 

Mirbane. 

Chicle. 

Alizarin. 

Fusel  oil. 

Opium. 

Morphine. 

Spirit  varnishes. 

Crayons. 

Smalts. 

Browns. 

Chlorate   of  potash. 

Alcohol  medicines. 

Chlorate  of  soda. 

Soda  ash. 


B. 

Beveled— 

Plaster  rock. 
Plaster  of  paris,  ground. 
Magnesic  brick. 
Pumice  stone. 

13  by  24. 
24  by  30. 
Plate  glass: 
1  6  by  24. 

Asphalt. 
Clock  cases. 
Chemical    glassware. 
Decanters,    etc. 
Plate  Glass: 

24  by  30. 
Beveled— 
1  6   by   24. 
24  by  30. 
Glass   paste. 
Glass,  broken. 

1  6  by  24. 
24  by  30. 
Polished— 

Agate. 
Alabaster. 

T       , 

1  6  by  24. 

Jet. 
Freestone. 

24  by  30. 
Silvered  — 

x-        i 

Granite. 
Granite,    dressed. 

16   by   24. 

24  by  30. 

C. 

Cylinder    glass  : 

Scissors  and  shears. 

1  6  by  24. 

Tinsel    wire. 

24  by  30. 

Wire    cloth. 

Ground  — 

Shotguns. 

24  by  36. 

Saws. 

SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


117 


Mica. 

Chronometer. 
Watches. 
Watch  cases. 

D. 

Railroad  ties. 

Clapboards. 

Shingles. 

E. 

Sugar. 
Molasses. 
Glucose. 
Saccharine. 

G. 


Chocolate. 
Cocoa. 
Dandelion    root. 


M. 


Braids,    plaits,    laces    etc. 


Paper  manufactures. 
H.  N. 

Ginger  ale.  Beads. 

Mineral   waters,   natural.     Hats 

I. 

Plushes    and    corduroys.     £oal,    anthracite. 
Manufactures,  cotton,  n 
0    p     f  leathers,    crude. 

Precious  stones. 

Hemp,   tow   of. 

Flax   tow. 

Hemp   and   jute   carpets. 
Orchids   lily  of  the  val-     Jute  yarn. 

ley,   etc. 
Garden  seed. 
Straw. 

Smoked  fish. 

Fruits  preserved  in  their    Other    manufactures, 
own    juice.  Jute  manufactures. 

Gunny   bags,   old,   etc. 

K. 


Cordage. 
Twine. 
Oilcloth. 
Hemp. 


Zante  currants. 

Dates. 

Oranges. 

Lemons. 

Meats. 

Olives. 

Cocoanut  meat  or  copra. 

Pineapples. 


Carpets. 
Hats. 


L. 


Buttons. 
Metal  buttons. 
Feathers      and 

beds. 
Skins. 
Fans. 
Haircloth. 
Hats. 
Jewelry. 
Jewelry,    set. 
Hides. 
Leather. 
Laces. 
Coral. 
Spar. 

Musical   instruments. 
LJmbrellas. 
Sticks    for    umbrellas. 


down      for 


Spun    silk. 

The  enormous  duties  imposed  by  this  bill  are  not  justified  by 
any  protective  theory  or  by  any  political  platform  or  public  campaign 
promise.  They  are  levied  probably  in  redemption  of  secret  political 
engagements. 

PROSPERITY   AND   THE   TARIFF. 

Before  proceeding  to  discuss  the  schedules  I  am  compelled  to 
admit  I  do  not  believe  that  any  tariff  law  will  of  itself  produce 
prosperity.  I  think  that  the  financial  policy  of  the  present  Admin 
istration  must  be  wholly  inadequate  to  the  needs  of  the  hour,  and 
that  while  there  may  be,  and  indeed  I  think  must  be,  some  relief 
from  the  prostrate  conditions  involving  us,  we  will  not  find  ourselves 
on  safe  or  solid  ground  until  we  escape  from  the  evils  of  the  gold 
standard. 

Good  crops  here,  poor  crops  elsewhere,  and  other  similar  possi 
ble  and  even  probable  conditions  will  beneficially  affect  certain  inter 
ests,  and  must  promote  the  well-being  of  many.  But  when  I  speak 
of  prosperity,  I  mean  something  more  than  these  transitory  effects. 
The  Dingley  bill  is  enough  to  defeat  any  organization,  but  those  who 
will  assume  the  reins  of  power  when  the  Republican  party  is  relegated 
to  obscurity  must  not  expect  to  realize  the  hopes  of  their  adherents 
by  mere  disputations  upon  tariff  schedules.  Trade  has  been  so  long 
and  generally  depressed  that  a  rally  is  reasonably  anticipated,  but 
the  evils  of  the  financial  system  to  which  the  Republican  party  is 
committed  will  be  more  and  more  evident  as  time  passes.  Voters  of 
all  parties  must  recognize  this.  The  proper  management  of  our 
finances  will  be  the  dominant  issue  until  bimetallism  is  restored. 

Mr.  President,  as  stated  by  the  Senator  from  Colorado  [Mr. 
TELLER],  it  is  said  that  the  President  of  the  United  States,  after 


118  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

having  procured — or  looked  with  satisfaction  upon,  I  prefer  to  say — 
the  passage  of  this  tariff  bill,  and  discovering  that  we  are  not  be 
coming  rich  at  a  rate  calculated  to  disturb  our  mentality  or  to  excite 
world-wide  interest,  has  determined  to  send  in  a  message  asking  for 
authority  to  appoint  a  currency  commission.  It  was  commonly 
reported  that  the  President  would  have  sent  this  message  in  at  an 
earlier  hour  had  he  not  supposed  that  to  do  so  might  interfere  with 
the  enactment  of  this  precious  bill.  It  was  thought  that  unless  the 
currency  message  was  placed  upon  the  desks  of  Senators,  they  would 
be  unaware  of  the  Presidential  conception,  although  the  world  at 
large  might  be  informed  with  reference  thereto. 

It  was  feared  that  if  the  Senate  really  believed  that  such  a  move 
ment  was  contemplated,  we  would  not  permit  the  tariff  bill  to  make 
the  people  blessed,  and  that  we  might  all  seek  to  borrow  that  historic 
time  consumer,  the  oft-mentioned  document  of  my  distinguished 
friend  the  senior  Senator  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  QUAY].  But, 
Mr.  President,  I  may  be  pardoned  if  I  insinuate  that  every  member 
of  this  Senate  has  heard  as  much  about  the  currency  proposition  as 
the  average  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  if  the  same  does  not 
appear  in  this  Capitol  today  or  tomorrow  it  will  not  astonish  any 
body,  nor  will  its  nonappearance  cause  excitement. 

Mr.  President,  I  fail  to  understand  the  necessity  for  the  appoint 
ment  of  this  commission.  They  can  not  enact  a  currency  bill.  Even 
the  celebrated  fourth  section  of  the  reciprocity  clause,  found  in  the 
pending  conference  report,  with  all  of  its  peculiar  delegations  and 
subtractions  and  conglomerations  of  power,  contains  nothing  equal 
to  the  theory  that  a  commission  appointed,  even  under  an  act  of 
Congress,  can  decree  a  financial  scheme  binding  to  any  extent  on  the 
Congress  or  the  country.  If  we  authorize  the  appointment  of  a  com 
mission,  if  we  give  authority  to  proceed  under  the  direction  of  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  a  report  may  be  made  to  us,  but  that 
report  will  not  constitute  even  a  prima  facie  case. 

It  will  be  even  necessary  to  prepare  a  bill,  and  to  introduce  it 
here ;  such  bill  must  come  from  a  member  of  the  body ;  and  it  will 
actually  be  essential  to  read  the  measure  three  times,  and  there  will 
be  nothing  so  sacred  about  it  that  it  will  not  be  subject  to  a  motion  to 
lay  on  the  table;  and  if  the  bill  should  repose  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Finance  for  a  period  necessary  for  its  careful 
examination,  there  will  be  no  unusual  procedure  for  its  recall.  It 
will  be  subject  to  ordinary  processes  of  the  Senate. 

Such  a  bill  will  amount  to  absolutely  nothing,  except  that  if 
such  a  commission  is  appointed  with  salary  under  a  law  of  Congress, 
then  its  members  can  perform  the  pleasant  feat  of  drawing  com 
pensation.  If  the  President  appoints  without  legislative  warrant,  no 
salary  will  be  paid.  The  commission's  legal  functions,  save  in  so  far 
as  drawing  salary  is  concerned,  will  be  the  same  in  either  contingency. 
It  will  be  an  innocent  affair,  except  as  it  may  aid  in  disposing  of  the 
surplus  which  will  be  found  in  the  Treasury  after  the  passage  of  this 
bill — as  we  are  told. 

REVENUE. 

Mr.  President,  from  the  beginning  of  the  present  debate  Demo 
cratic  members  of  the  Finance  Committee  and  other  Senators  have 
constantly  sought  to  obtain  from  their  Republican  brethren  some 
statement  as  to  the  probable  revenue  to  be  realized  from  this  bill. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  119 

While  aware  that  the  measure  must  become  odious  as  a  taxing 
instrument,  we  hoped  that  its  infirmities  might  to  some  extent  be 
compensated  for  by  a  demonstration  of  its  ability  to  fully  supply 
the  Treasury.  Our  efforts  in  this  direction  have  not  been  successful. 
The  Senator  from  Rhode  Island,  when  announcing  the  platform  of 
his  committee  and  his  party,  flatly  told  us  that  the  House  bill  was 
inadequate.  The  tenor  of  his  address  demonstrated  that  he  did  not 
wish  to  be  held  accountable  for  the  bill  as  it  reached  the  Senate. 

At  various  times  we  have  endeavored  to  elicit  the  views  of  the 
able  and  affable  senior  Senator  from  Iowa  as  to  the  producing 
qualities  of  this  alleged  promoter  of  prosperity.  The  information 
given  has  not  been  valuable.  Indeed,  the  meager  solace  which  has 
been  vouchsafed  us  by  our  reserved  friends  of  the  opposition  has 
not  been  of  a  reassuring  nature,  and  when  we  doubted  we  referred 
to  Congressional  history,  and  to  our  dismay  discovered  that  even 
the  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  [Mr.  ALDRICH]  and  the  Senator 
from  Maine  [Mr.  HALE] — two  of  our  more  experienced  members — 
prophesied  to  us  in  1894  regarding  the  revenue  capacity  of  the 
Wilson  bill  so  inaccurately  as  to  cause  us  to  lose  faith  in  their 
qualifications  in  that  regard.  Thus  the  Senator  from  Maine  said 
(CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD,  May  21,  1894,  volume  26,  part  5,  page 
5020)  : 

The  Senator  knows  that  by  the  bill  he  has  presented  here,  *  *  *  with 
out  reckoning  the  income  tax  and  the  tax  that  they  lay  upon  sugar,  the  two 
thus  increasing  the  House  bill  over  $80,000,000,  there  will  not  be  a  deficit 
obliging  them  to  resort  to  protective  duties  in  order  to  raise  a  revenue,  but 
there  will  be  a  surplus. 

The  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  [Mr.  ALDRICH ],  skilled  in  tariff 
diplomacy,  familiar  with  differentials,  profoundly  cognizant  of  com 
pound  duties,  accustomed  to  divert  himself  and  seek  relaxation  in 
those  tariff  mystifications  which  annoy  and  exasperate  most  of  us, 
added  the  weight  of  his  authority  to  the  calculation  of  the  Senator 
from  Maine,  and  I  find  (CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD,  volume  26,  part  5, 
page  4753,  May  15,  1894)  that  that  Senator  remarked: 

If,  as  I  believe,  it  can  be  shown,  and  shown  beyond  a  fear  of  contradiction, 
upon  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber  that  we  are  to  have  by  this  bill,  if  it  be 
come  a  law,  one  hundred  millions  or  more  of  surplus,  then  it  is  pertinent  in 
every  part  of  the  bill  and  in  every  paragraph  to  ask  as  to  what  will  be  its 
effect  upon  the  revenue,  etc. 

On  the  same  page  and  referring  to  the  same  computation,  he 
says : 

And  this  estimate  does  not  include  the  income  tax.  It  is  based  upon  the 
revenue  duties  alone. 

It  appears  that  these  Republican  Senators,  these  educated 
political  and  financial  experts,  did  not  guess  aright.  I  confess  that  I, 
being  then  even  less  advised  than  now  and  relying  upon  these  gentle 
men  more  than  now,  was  worried  lest  the  Wilson  bill  might  fill  the 
Treasury  with  an  enormous  and  deadly  surplus.  This  experience 
induces  me  to  question  the  infallibility  of  Republican  experts  as  to 
the  productiveness  of  a  tariff  bill,  especially  when  the  bill  is  of  Repub 
lican  parentage. 

The  last  full  fiscal  year  during  which  the  McKinley  bill  was  in 
operation  terminated  June  30,  1894.  That  measure  produced  in 
that  vear : 


120  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Customs    $131,807,758.88 

Internal   revenue    146,722,760.17 

Miscellaneous    15,133,841.84 


Total    $293,664,360.89 

The   first   full   year   of  the  operation   of  the   Wilson   bill  ended 
June  30,  1896.     The  revenue  received  for  that  period  was  as  follows : 

Customs $159,516,275.50 

Internal    revenues    145,850,780.29 

Miscellaneous 18,441,083.92 


Total    $323,803,139.71 

It  is  therefore  plain  that  although  there  was  a  slight  falling  off 
in  the  internal  revenue  in  the  fiscal  year  last  noted  as  compared 
with  that  first  referred  to,  nevertheless  during  the  first  fiscal  year 
during  which  the  Wilson  bill  was  in  absolute  and  entire  operation 
there  was  collected,  in  excess  of  the  revenue  of  the  last  fiscal  year 
under  the  McKinley  bill,  $30,143,778.82. 

A  reference  to  the  receipts  of  the  year  ending  June  30,  1897, 
shows  the  following: 

Customs    $176,316,393.18 

Internal   revenue 146,241,263.97 

Miscellaneous   24,627,071.47 


Total    $365,807,836.32 

It  will  thus  be  observed  that  the  total  revenue  for  the  year  just 
closed  on  the  accounts  above  mentioned  exceeds  the  revenue  pro 
duced  by  the  McKinley  bill  during  its  last  fiscal  year  in  the  sum  of 
$53>52o>367-73.  Notwithstanding  the  enormous  income  last  above 
noted,  there  was  a  deficiency  for  the  fiscal  year  1896-97  amounting 
to  $18,623,107.70.  It  is  proper  to  remark  that  had  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  adhered  to  its  views  as  laid  down  during 
its  antecedent  history  with  regard  to  the  income  tax,  the  Wilson  bill 
would  have  produced  a  surplus  amounting  to  between  $35,000,000 
and  $50,000,000,  and  the  burden  would  havq  been  largely  placed  upon 
those  best  able  to  bear  it. 

Some  of  the  parties  who  would  have  been  compelled  to  pay  taxes 
on  their  incomes  have  realized  within  the  last  three  months  from 
sugar  stock  alone,  and  because  of  the  increased  value  of  that  stock, 
between  $35,000,000  and  $40,000,000.  These  people,  by  processes 
which  I  can  not  fathom,  have  succeeded  in  eliminating  the  carefully 
prepared  Senate  amendment  providing  for  a  tax  upon  stock  issues. 
The  only  reason  given  for  the  extraordinary  performance  of  the 
Senate  managers  is  that  the  gentlemen  who  conducted  the  proceed 
ings  upon  the  part  of  the  House  made  the  Senate  conferees  familiar 
with  some  provision  of  the  National  Constitution  rendering  the  tax 
invalid  because  of  the  exemption  of  homestead  associations. 

While  neither  of  the  able  Republican  lawyers  in  this  Chamber 
discovered  this  so-called  invalidity  during  the  consideration  of  an 
amendment  which  was  suggested,  carefully  digested,  and  subsequently 
introduced  and  passed  here  pursuant  to  a  Republican  caucus  decree, 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  121 

nevertheless,  if  the  argument  is  sufficient  to  show  the  unconstitution 
ally  of  the  plan,  which  I  deny,  the  conferees  could  readily  have 
adjusted  the  trouble,  and  could  have  removed  the  discrimination  by 
merely  exscinding  the  few  words  referring  to  homesteads.  I  fear 
that  the  real  reason  for  the  action  of  our  Republican  friends  is  dis 
covered  in  their  gratitude  to  late  campaign  contributors. 

At  this  point  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  refer  concisely  to  the 
effect  of  the  Wilson  bill  upon  the  trade  of  the  United  States. 

Our  merchandise  exports  for  twelve  months  ending  June  30,  1897, 
aggregated  $1,051,987,091 — the  largest  in  the  history  of  the  country, 
even  exceeding  the  remarkable  showing  of  1892.  Our  imports  for 
the  same  period  reached  $764,373,905,  showing  an  excess  of  exports 
over  imports  and  a  favorable  trade  balance  of  $287,613,186.  While 
the  percentage  of  profit  upon  the  commodities  thus  exported  may  not 
have  been  very  large,  still  the  payment  to  citizens  of  this  country 
of  the  enormous  sum  noted  tended  in  no  small  degree  to  mitigate 
prevailing  evils. 

It  is  not  easy  to  compute  the  revenue  value  of  the  Dingley  bill. 
Much  will,  no  doubt,  depend  upon  the  general  state  of  trade.  If 
that  prosperity  which  has  been  due  so  long  visits  us,  large  collec 
tions  may  be  expected ;  but  the  bill  contains  so  many  prohibitive 
rates  and'  is  so  permeated  by  the  spirit  of  imposition  and  so  much 
of  the  tax  levied  goes  into  the  pockets  of  the  favored  few  that  the 
prospects  for  surplus  are  not  as  encouraging  as  generally  imagined. 
In  any  ordinary  financial  weather  the  Wilson  bill  would  produce 
ample  revenue. 

SUGAR. 

So  much  has  been  said  with  reference  to  this  subject  that  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  enter  into  great  detail.  In  1890  the  Republican 
party  announced  that  sugar,  being  a  necessary  of  life,  ought  not  to  be 
taxed,  and  that  the  cultivation  of  cane  and  beet  and  maple  sugar 
deserved  encouragement  to  be  given  by  means  of  bounty.  In  1894 
the  Democratic  party  repudiated  this  idea  and  imposed  a  tax  upon 
sugar  in  substance  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem,  one-eighth  differential 
and  one-tenth  countervailing.  When  the  bill  now  under  consideration 
came  from  the  House,  a  specific  duty  was  levied,  which  was  changed 
by  the  insertion  of  an  ad  valorem  element  by  the  Senate  Committee 
on  Finance;  but  before  a  vote  could  be  taken,  the  Republican  mem 
bers  of  that  committee  who  were  responsible  for  the  schedules  intro 
duced  upon  that  subject  abandoned  their  previous  work  and  adopted 
the  principle  of  the  House  bill,  raising  the  rates,  however,  materially. 

Thus  the  matter  went  to  conference,  and  a  report  was  finally 
made  modifying  both  Senate  and  House  provisions  upon  this  subject 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  slightly  decrease  the  differential  on  certain 
grades  and  to  raise  it  on  others,  preserving,  however,  the  high  rate 
on  refined  sugars.  I  herewith  present  a  table  with  reference  to  all 
the  bills,  prepared  by  Mr.  Schoenhof,  showing  the  differential  and 
duty-paid  price  of  German  granulated.  In  this  computation  the  draw 
back  allowance  fixed  by  the  Treasury  is  allowed.  I  think  it  has  been 
quite  clearly  demonstrated  by  the  Senator  from  Louisiana  [Mr. 
CAFFERY]  that  this  drawback  table  is  grossly  inaccurate,  and  if  this 
be  true  the  trust's  profits  will  be  much  greater. 

The  tables  referred  to  are  as  follows : 


122 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


1  5>>a 
?  2^s 
§  OP® 
p 
<i 


^-1 

>->.;H         eC    O 
-Jf  c^  05  bcefl 

«&tgl 


H 

£  DQ 

- 


tO  CO  CO  "<t  GO  I>         r-»  GO  CO         !>.  GO 


ot^Tf 

O  O  ^H 


r-5  c^  c<i  c^  w  ci  CQ  i  ci  c-i  ci  c^'  c4 


SW^vOCOOCJ^-vOCOOO} 
OOOOrHT-HrHTHr-IC^C^ 
iHr-t»HrHrHiHr-JrHrHr-l»H»H 


££3£ 


fOCNiOiHl>rOCOrOCO 


^_    C3    o         T3     .    'd      . 


iO  fO 

ro  00  f*5 
H  rH 


| 


s  S^a 

^    2    S    0> 

^OQO 
a 

s 


111 

f3 


0       ^ 

>  Z  S 
oc     'd 


Ml 

1 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


123 


ro  \0  vOI>  00 
rH  iH  CO  CO  Tf- 
i/)  i/)  U}  u")  i/) 


ssg 


rO  "^  v£>  t>;  00 

S*  t>I  »o*  f*5  »H 
0000 


c<i  H  c^  ci  ci 


^  ^  ^  CN  ^ 


fO  00  rH 


Vs  M— *     ^-* 

1&F 

•£%>  &« 
a3  -  ^g 
2  o^^S 
V  2  "S  "S  £ 
-gOOOO 
a 
v 

OD 


fi 


CO 


00  r-t  LO  f*5  lO  U}  O\ 


VO  C-l 

ci  ri  ri  H  ci  H  c4  ri  csj  ci  c4  c4  ci  ri 


•*oor<>ricic<jaO'^- 


n 
en 
d  raw 


ce 


e 
e 
id 
d 
ed. 


Diffe 
betw 
duty-pai 
an 
refin 


up 

w  & 


14* 


O       rH  rH  r-( 


LOi 

01  1 


124 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


"- 
o§ 

0    o 


r*5  ro  f<)  ro  ro  fO  co 


c    CQ  ro  to  ro  ro  ro 


vo 

00 

ro  CO 


0 

GJ 

0  o  O 


S  3     - 
£  §£*- 

CP  2  s 

IjOPf 

a 

O) 
CG 


ce 


Differen 
between 
duty-paid  raw 
and 
refined. 


IS     -S 

e3   ^   ^H  13 
ft  o  oJ  ^ 


- 

<j  goo 


r-»  TH  r-t  O 

f>l  C<1  fM  C1 


|  ro  TH  O^  t>  UO  ro  rH 

r?rHrHOOOOO 
"SrHrHrHrHrHrHrH 


CO  vo  ON      rH 
rO  ON  L/J  fXJ  00  Tf  ON 
l>.  t>-  00  ON  ON  O  O 
ro  ro  ro  ro'  ro  W 


00 


PH  So       55  CD 
13 


n 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


125 


Conference  Committee  Bill. 


Degrees. 

Difference 
under 
Dingley 
biii. 

Difference 
under 
Senate 
bill. 

Difference 
under 
amended 
Senate 
bill. 

Difference 
under 
amended 
Senate  bill 
(molasses, 
sugars, 
etc.1). 

Difference 
under 
conference 
report 
bill. 

Difference 
under 
present 
tariff 
law. 

75  

$1.346 

$1.593 

$1.426 

$1.713 

$1.494 

$1.00 

76  

1.257 

1.479 

1.337 

1.638 

1.287 

.918 

77  

1.169 

1.359 

1.249 

1.568 

1.301 

.828 

78 

1.090 

1.264 

1.170 

1.494 

1.212 

741 

79  

1.008 

1.173 

1.088 

1.428 

1.125 

665 

80      

.938 

1.062 

1.018 

1.357 

1.044 

.573 

81  

.858 

.976 

.938 

1.29 

.961 

505 

82  

.791 

.869 

.871 

1.231 

.893 

.435 

83 

.734 

.794 

.814 

1  168 

813 

349 

84 

.661 

.709 

.741 

1.118 

74 

297 

85          

.618 

.668 

.698 

1.08 

691 

255 

86  

.577 

.618 

.657 

1.047 

642 

217 

87      

.531 

.56 

.611 

1.018 

593 

182 

88  

.483 

.508 

.587 

.557 

165 

89 

.502 

.484 

582 

533 

152 

90 

.463 

.452 

543 

502 

12^ 

91 

447 

.438 

.527 

487 

103 

92 

.429 

.418 

.509 

464 

097 

93 

.430 

.424 

505 

4596 

107 

94 

.433 

.433 

.508 

4^7 

12 

95 

.438 

.43 

.513 

.4578 

125 

96      

.441 

.434 

.516 

4578 

.135 

97  

.450 

.445 

.536 

.4618 

148 

98  

.462 

.448 

.537 

.4695 

165 

99  

.472 

.478 

.548 

.4755 

17=; 

.  Degrees. 

Price 
given  by 
sugar 
dealers 
(100 
pounds). 

Duty  per 
100 
pounds). 

Duty- 
paid 
price  per 
100 
pounds. 

Drawback 
allowance 
for  100 
pounds  of 
refined. 

Duty-paid 
price  of 
raw  sugar 
in  100 
pounds  of 
refined. 

Difference 
between 
duty  •  paid 
rawm 
refined  and 
duty-paid 
refined. 

75 

$1  19 

$0  95 

$2  14 

Pounds  . 

146  68 

$3  139 

$1  494 

76  

1  25 

985 

2  235 

144  82 

3  346 

1  °87 

77  

1.31 

1  02 

2  33 

142  95 

3  339 

1  301 

78  

1.37 

1.055 

2.425 

141  08 

3  421 

1  212 

79  

1.43 

1.09 

2  52 

139  21 

3  508 

1  125 

80 

1  49 

1  125 

7  615 

137  35 

3  589 

1  044 

81  . 

1  55 

1  16 

2  71 

135  48 

3  672 

961 

82  

1  61 

1  195 

?  805 

133  61 

3  74 

893 

83  

1  67 

1  23 

2  90 

131  74 

3  82 

813 

84  

1.73 

1  265 

2  995 

129  88 

3  893 

74 

85  

1.78 

1  30 

3  08 

128  01 

3  942 

691 

86  

1.83 

1.335 

3  165 

126  14 

3  991 

642 

87  ..  . 

1  88 

1  37 

3  25 

124  27 

4  04 

593 

88  

1  92 

1  405 

3  325 

122  41 

4  076 

557 

89      

1.96 

1  44 

3  40 

120  54 

4  10 

533 

90  

2.00 

1  475 

3475 

118  67 

4  131 

502 

91  

2.04 

1.51 

355 

116  81 

4  146 

487 

92  

2  08 

1  545 

3  625 

114  94 

4  169 

464 

93  

2  11 

1.58 

3  69 

113  07 

4  1734 

4596 

94  

2.14 

1  615 

3  755 

111  20 

4  176 

457 

95  

2  17 

1  65 

3  82 

109  34 

4  1752 

4578 

96  

2.20 

1.685 

3  885 

107  47 

4  1752 

4578 

97  .. 
98  

2.23 
2  26 

1.72 
1  755 

3.95 
4  015 

105.6 
103  73 

4.  1712 
4  1635 

.4618 
4695 

99  

2.29 

1.79 

4.08 

101.87 

4.157S 

.4755 

126  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

A  table  upon  this  subject  was  presented  by  me  to  the  Senate 
on  the  20th  of  this  niuiith.  I  then  made  certain  statements  with 
reference  thereto,  as  follows : 

Mr.  WHITE.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  more  this  sugar  schedule  is  investi 
gated  and  this  conference  report  is  studied  by  the  impartial  mind,  the  more 
thoroughly  will  the  Republican  Senate  conferees  be  acquitted  of  the  charge 
of  submission. 

I  have  a  table  which  is  short  and  relates  only  to  certain  grades,  but  as  far 
as  it  goes  it  will  throw  a  light  upon  the  subject.  I  will  ask  the  Secretary  to 
read  it. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Without  objection,  the  Secretary  will  read  as 
requested. 

The  SECRETARY  read  as  follows : 

"According  to  the  table  furnished  by  the  Senator  from  Iowa  [Mr.  ALLISON] 
(see  CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD,  page  2066,  June  15),  together  with  the  value  of 
89-degree  sugar  established  by  the  sugar  dealers  at  New  York  of  similar  date, 
the  following  comparison  will  show  that  instead  of  the  House  having  gained 
a  victory  in  the  sugar  schedule  agreed  on  in  conference  the  reduction  from 
the  Senate's  differential  is  trifling  as  to  refined  sugar  and  made  from  89-degree 
raw  sugar,  and  that  on  refined  sugar  made  from  sugars  testing  less  than  83 
degrees  the  amount  of  protection  given  to  the  trust,  instead  of  being  less,  is 
greater  under  the  schedule  agreed  to  in  conference  than  under  either  the 
House  bill  or  the  Senate  amendments  thereto." 

Value  of  120.54  pounds  of  89-degree  sugar  necessary  to  make  100  pounds 

of  granulated,   at  $1.96  per   100  pounds    $2.3626 

Duty  at  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem 9450 


Value  of  loo  pounds   of  granulated,  as  estimated  by  the   Senator  from 
Iowa 2.47 


Duty  at  40  per  cent  ad  valorem 9450 

Deduct   duty   on    raw    945 

Differential      168 

HOUSE    BILL. 

Duty  on  100  pounds  of  granulated    1.875 

Duty  on  120.54  pounds  of  89-degree  sugar   1.711 

Differential      164 

SENATE    AMENDMENT. 

Duty  on  100  pounds  of  granulated 1.95 

Duty  on   1^0.54  pounds    1.71  r 


Differential      239 

CONFERENCE   SCHEDULE. 

Duty  on   uo   pounds    of   granulated $1.95 

Duty  on  120.54  pounds  of  89-degree   sugar 1.736 

Differential     214 

Comparison  of  the  Senate  rates  and  conference  rates  on  razv  sugars. 

Senate  duty  on  sugars  testing  75  degrees,  per  100  pounds i  oo 

Conference 


Senate  duty  on  sugars  testing  80  degrees,  per  100  pounds  1.15 

Conference    1.125 

Senate  duty  on  sugars  testing  83  degrees,  per  100  pounds 1.24 

Conference T  23 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  127 

Senate  duty  on  sugars  testing  85  degrees,  per  100  pounds 1.30 

Conference    1.30 

Senate  duty  on  sugars  testing  89  degrees,  per  100  pounds 1.42 

Conference    i i-44 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  on  all  sugars  testing  below  85  degrees  the  trust 
will  have  to  pay  less  duty  than  under  the  Senate  amendments,  and  as  the 
duty  on  refined  sugar  is  the  same  in  both  the  Senate  and  conference  sched 
ules,  the  conference  schedule  is  far  more  favorable  to  the  trust  than  the 
Senate  schedule. 

Mr.  WHITE.  When  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  was  in 
the  Senate,  and  before  his  illness,  which  we  all  so  much  regretted,  he  pre 
sented  on  the  part  of  the  committee  a  tabulated  statement,  incorporating  it 
in  his  very  able  speech,  from  which  he  showed  that  the  schedule  prepared 
by  him,  or  by  the  committee  of  which  he  was  a  member,  was  not  only  a  more 
equitable  schedule  than  that  presented  by  the  House,  but  that  it  was,  in  fact, 
lower.  To  use  his  own  language : 

"  This  table  shows  that  the  differential  between  raw  and  refined  sugars  by 
the  Senate  proposition  varies  from  9.77  to  15.40  cents  per  100  pounds,  while 
the  differential  in  the  House  bill  varies  from  12.20  to  17.35  cents  per  100 
pounds." 

Taking  the  basis  which  he  assumed,  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  expert 
who  has  disputed  his  conclusion.  Yet,  Mr.  President,  we  have  now  a  bill 
which  is  an  advance  upon  the  schedule  proposed  by  the  Senator  from  Rhode 
Island.  No  wonder  the  sugar  market  trembled  and  brought  forth  increased 
prices. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  before  me  an  official  statement  showing  the  importa 
tions  of  sugar  during  the  first  six  months  of  the  present  year.  The  aggregate 
for  those  months  was  3,240,967,568  pounds,  and  the  statistician  informs  me  that 
there  is  still  omitted  perhaps  4  per  cent  of  the  importations  of  last  June. 

I  must  call  attention  to  a  matter  which  I  noted,  I  think,  at  an  earlier  stage 
of  the  discussion,  namely,  that  under  the  Wilson  act — the  prevailing  law — 
the  duty-paid  price  of  sugar  is  3-445 ;  that  is,  taking  2.30  as  the  price  of  Ger 
man  granulated,  40  per  cent  ad  valorem  amounts  to  ninety-two  one-hun- 
dredths!  We  add  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  one-thousandths,  which  ^  is 
the  one-eighth  differential,  and  ten  one-hundredths  as  the  countervailing 
duty.  The  result  is  3.445. 

On  the  other  hand,  take  the  price  of  German  granulated  at  1.95  and  three 
hundred  and  eighty-three  one-thousandths  as  the  countervailing  duty,  and 
we  have  4.633  as  the  duty-paid  price  of  German  granulated  in  this  country, 
showing  that  it  will  cost  1.188  cents  more  under  this  reform,  reduced,  and 
triumphal-march  schedule  to  buy  a  pound  of  sugar  than  under  the  present 
prevailing  law. 

If  we  have  in  this  country  70,000,000  people,  and  if  the  average  consump 
tion  is  66  pounds  per  capita,  and  if  it  be  true  that  the  price  of  sugar  must 
increase  1.18,  we  have  a  difference  of  cost  alone  imposed  on  the  free  breakfast 
table  of  over  $54,000,000;  more,  Mr.  President,  I  fear,  than  that  fragile  struct 
ure  can  bear,  because,  relying  upon  the  promise  of  our  friends  on  the  other 
side,  the  breakfast  table  has  not  been  lately  constructed  of  material  suffi 
ciently  resistant  to  stand  such  an  enormous  imposition. 

We  therefore  find  that  our  Republican  friends  have  favored  the 
sugar  trust  as  it  was  never  favored  before;  and  whatever  may  be 
the  protestations  emanating  from  the  majority  in  either  branch  of 
Congress,  the  enormous  rise  in  market  values  tells  the  tale.  Some 
one  has  said  to  me  in  this  discussion,  "  You  will  find  no  indication 
of  the  effect  of  the  sugar  schedule  in  the  price  of  sugar  stock."  This 
was  not  the  phraseology  or  argument  employed  by  our  Republican 
friends  during  the  debate  of  1894. 

When  the  Wilson  bill  was  under  consideration,  the  distinguished 
Senator  from  Connecticut  [Mr.  PLATT]  said,  regarding  the  sugar 
schedule : 

It  is  clothed  in  language  that  requires  an  expert  to  determine,  but  it  was 
sufficient  to  put  up  the  price  of  common  sugar  stock  in  New  York  $15  a 


128  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

share.  It  is  enough  to  prevent  the  introduction  of  refined  sugar  into  this 
country,  and  anybody  who  has  studied  this  matter  knows  it  whether  he  be 
Senator  or  whether  he  be  speculator  in  Wall  street  in  sugar-trust  stock.  The 
bill  has  been  changed,  increasing  the  proposed  duty  upon  refined  sugar,  sim 
ply  because  it  could  not  be  passed  unless  that  concession  was  made  to  the 
sugar  trust. — Congressional  Record,  volume  26,  part  5,  page  4706,  May  14, 
1894- 

These  are  quoted  words,  and  their  applicability  is  sufficiently 
obvious  to  foreclose  the  necessity  of  discussion. 

In  the  present  instance  sugar  stock  has  risen  about  35  points, 
and  it  is  calculated  that  it  has  increased  in  value  about  one-third. 
The  situation  is  peculiarly  disagreeable  -when  we  learn  from  the 
opening  address  of  the  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  [Mr.  ALDRICH] 
that  the  schedule  which  he  prepared  and  which  the  Republican  party 
abandoned  accorded  a  lighter  differential  than  any  since  suggested. 
Who  doubts  that  the  sugar  trust  contributed  enormously  to  the  last 
campaign?  The  disposition  of  Mr.  Havemeyer  was  demonstrated 
by  his  testimony  before  the  Senate  investigation  committee.  I  quote : 

Senator  ALLEN.  Had  you  or  the  Sugar  Refining  Company  contributed  any 
thing  to  the  campaign  fund  in  New  York  last  year — the  Democratic  State 
campaign  fund  of  last  year? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.     I  will  have  to -answer  that  in  the  affirmative. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Did  you  also  contribute  something  to  the  Republican  cam 
paign  fund — that  is,  for  the  State  campaign? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.     We  always  do  that.     I  have  not  the  amount  in  my  mind. 

Senator  ALLEN.     In  1892  did  you  contribute  to  either  party? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.     The  local  parties? 

Senator  ALLEN.     The  national  parties. 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.  No,  sir;  but  always  to  the  local  parties.  Let  that  be  dis 
tinct. 

Senator  ALLEN.  And  you  contribute  to  both  parties  with  the  expectation 
that,  whichever  party  succeeds,  your  interests  will  be  guarded? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.  We  have  a  good  deal  of  protection  for  our  contribu 
tion. 

Senator  ALLEN.     Therefore  you  feel  at  liberty  to  contribute  to  both  parties? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.  It  depends.  In  the  State  of  New  York,  where  the  Demo 
cratic  majority  is  between  40,000  and  50,000  we  throw  it  their  way.  In  the 
State  of  Massachusetts,  where  the  Republican  majority  is  doubtful,  they 
probably  have  the  call. 

Senator  ALLEN.  However,  in  the  State  of  New  York  you  contribute  to 
the  Democratic  party,  and  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  you  con 
tribute  to  the  Republican  party? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.  It  is  my  impression  that  wyherever  there  is  a  dominant 
party,  wherever  the  majority  is  very  large,  that  is  the  party  that  gets  the 
contribution,  because  it  is  the  party  that  controls  local  matters. 

Senator  ALLEN.  Then  the  sugar  trust  is  a  Democrat  in  a  Democratic  State 
and  a  Republican  in  a  Republican  State? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.  As  far  as  local  matters  are  concerned,  I  think  that  is 
about  it. 

Senator  ALLEN.  In  the  State  of  Maine,  you  control  the  refineries  at  Port 
land,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.  That  is  defunct.  We  would  not  give  anything  to  the 
State  of  Maine. 

Senator  ALLEN.  In  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  where  do  your  contribu 
tions  go  ? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.     I  will  have  to  look  that  up. 

Senator  ALLEN.  In  the  State  of  your  nativity,  of  the  nativity  of  your  cor 
poration,  New  Jersey,  where  do  your  contributions  go? 

MR.  HAVEMEYER.     I  will  have  to  look  that  up. 

Senator  ALLEN.  I  understand  that  New  Jersey  is  invariably  a  Democratic 
State.  It  would  probably  go  the  Democratic  party? 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  129 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.  Under  the  theory  I  have  suggested,  if  they  were  there, 
it  would  naturally  go  to  them. 

*  #  *  *  *  *  * 

Senator  ALLEN.  And  this  money  that  you  contribute  to  these  different 
parties  for  campaign  purposes,  local  campaign  purposes — that  money  comes 
out  of  the  corporation  of  the  sugar  refining  company? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.     Yes,  sir. 

Senator  ALLEN.     And  is  a  part  of  the  expenses  of  that  company? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.    Yes,  sir. 

Senator  ALLEN.     Charged  up  on  your  books  as  expenses? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.     Yes,  sir. 

Senator  ALLEN.     How  would  it  show — as  so  much  money? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.  It  would  show  that  a  payment  was  made,  and  that  pay 
ment  would  have  to  be  explained  by  the  party  who  made  it. 

Senator  ALLEN.  The  manner  in  which  he  did  explain  it  actually  would  not 
appear  upon  your  books? 

Mr.  HAVEMEYER.     No,  sir. 

He  certainly  did  not  advance  funds  to  the  Democratic  party, 
and  if  he  told  the  truth  when  he  said,  "  We  have  a  good  deal  of 
protection  for  our  contribution,"  he  might  emphasize  the  statement 
now ;  for  though  he  may  have  yielded  many  thousands  to  the  Repub 
lican  campaign  committee,  he  has  been  most  amply  rewarded.  How 
can  my  Republican  friends  explain  their  change  of  base  upon  the 
sugar  issue?  They  often  spoke  of  the  free  breakfast  table  and  of 
the  outrage  committed  by  the  Democracy  in  imposing  such  a  heavy 
tax  upon  the  consumer  of  sugar.  And  here  let  it  be  remembered  that 
under  the  prevailing  law  the  duty-paid  price  of  German  granulated 
is  3.444,  and  under  the  conference  bill  it  is  4.633,  or  1.188  in  excess 
of  the  sum  so  often  and  bitterly  referred  to  by  Republican  Senators 
in  the  debate  of  1894. 

I  here  insert  remarks  made  by  some  of  the  distinguished  Sena 
tors  upon  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber,  to  which  I  have  already 
directed  attention.  I  do  not  wish  to  trespass  upon  the  time  of  the 
Senate  or  to  further  harrow  the  feelings  of  anyone  by  rereading 
the  same.  My  main  object  in  placing  these  excerpts  in  the  RECORD 
is  to  enable  my  friends  upon  the  other  side  to  readily  ascertain  what 
they  believed  or  said  they  believed  in  the  year  1894.  I  was  about  to 
cite  a  quotation  from  the  Senator  from  New  Hampshire,  commencing, 
4<  The  sugar  show  is  about  to  close,"  but  I  will  forbear. 

The  Senator  from  New  Hampshire   [Mr.  GALLTNGER]   said: 

The  advantage    which    the    new    tariff   act — 
It  was  the  McKinley  Act  of  which  he  then  spoke — 

gives  to  the    country   in   the   matter   of   sugar   for   one   year   can    be   seen   at   a 
glance : 

Amount  of   duty    taken    off $60,000,000 

Amount  paid    for    bounties 9,000,000 


Amount    saved   to   the   people   by   the   new    reciprocity   treaty 

alone     51 ,000,000 

(CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD,  page  4972,  volume  26,  part  5,  May  19,  1894.) 

The  then  senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  SHERMAN],  now  the  distin 
guished  Secretary  of  State,  elaborated  upon  this  subject,  and  he  laid 
down  the  proposition  that  it  was  absolutely  unnecessary  to  give  any 
differential  to  the  refiners ;  that  any  allowance  made  to  the  refiners 


130  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

was  not  only  injudicious,  but  was  a  contribution  to  the  most  oppres 
sive  monopoly  of  the  day.  During  the  entire  course  of  that  debate 
it  was  charged  that  we  were  under  the  influence  of  the  trust,  and 
that  the  ad  valorem  tariff  of  40  per  cent,  was  placed  in  the  bill 
especially  for  the  benefit  of  that  institution,  so  loyal  to  Democracy's 
opponents.  I  refer  to  the  proceedings  of  May  31,  1894,  of  this  body, 
to  be  found  in  volume  26,  part  6,  pages  5517  and  5518,  when  the  then 
Senator  from  Ohio,  the  present  distinguished  Secretary  of  State,  said 
upon  this  subject: 

The  quotations  I  have  marked  in  the  report  made  by  the  Committee  on 
Finance  show  that  it  is  an  industry  (sugar  refining)  which  needs  no  protec 
tion;  and  when  they  come  here  and  secure  a  benefit  to  be  conferred  upon 
them,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  time  has  come  to  call  a  halt.  I  had  rather  cut 
off  my  right  hand  than  vote  a  single  cent  of  bounty  to  a  corporation  which 
has  dealt  with  the  Government  as  these  corporations  have  done. 

The  same  able  Senator  further  stated,  speaking  of  the  McKinley 
bill: 

It  has  some  demerits.  It  adopted  bounties  for  sugar  instead  of  protection, 
which  I  believed  at  the  time  was  a  bad  policy.  It  favored  unduly,  I  think, 
the  great  sugar  trust,  then  not  known,  and  which  had  not  grown  to  the 
importance  which  it  has  assumed  since. — Congressional  Record,  page  5510,  vol 
ume  26,  part  6,  May  31,  1894. 

I  would  not  be  true  to  myself  if  I  did  not  state  that  although  I  voted  for 
the  passage  of  the  McKinley  bill,  I  was  not  at  any  period  of  its  pendency  in 
favor  of  the  disposition  it  proposed  of  the  sugar  question. — Congressional 
Record,  page  5514,  volume  26,  part  6,  May  31,  1894. 

I  beg  leave  also  to  cite  a  few  remarks  made  by  the  distinguished 
Senator  from  New  Hampshire  [Mr.  GALLINGER]  upon  the  same 
interesting  occasion,  and  with  reference  to  the  same  subject. 

On  sugar — 
Said  that  disting-uished  Senator — 

the  tariff  strikes  a  blow  at  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  land,  and 
especially  in  the  families  of  the  poor.  It  protects  and  fattens  the  great  sugar 
trust,  while  at  the  same  time  it  imposes  an  additional  burden  upon  every 
consumer  of  sugar  in  the  United  States.— Congressional  Record,  page  3893, 
volume  26,  part  4,  April  20,  1894. 

Is  it  not  sad,  even  pathetic,  to  reflect  that  the  present  bill  is  an 
exaggeration  of  the  Wilson  Act  in  this  ulterior  regard? 

I  also  have  another  extract  from  the  able  and  diplomatic  Senator 
from  Maine  [Mr.  HALE].  He  said: 

The  Republican  party  has  a  policy  that,  as  the  years  go  by,  will  be  sanc 
tioned,  and  our  people  will  be  grateful  for  the  building  up  in  this  country  of 
industry  in  every  form  and  of  the  production  of  sugar  that  in  the  end  will 
relieve  us  from  the  tribute  that  we  pay  to  other  nations.  There  is  no  more 
beneficent  thing,  Mr.  President,  that  the  Republican  party  has  been  engaged 
in  for  years  in  all  its  missions,  since  it  has  taken  into  consideration  the  great 
financial  and  fiscal  questions  of  this  country,  than  the  two  things  which  were 
embodied  in  that  proposition  upon  sugar  that  was  free  sugar  for  the  break 
fast  table  and  a  system  of  bounties  which  would  encourage  and  build  up  in 
this  country  an  industry  by  which  within  twelve  years  we  should  raise  all 
the  sugar  consumed  by  the  American  people.  I  am  willing  in  the  future  to 
stand  upon  that  proposition.  I  am  willing  to  contrast  that  with  the  attitude 
that  the  Democratic  party  is  in,  either  in  the  other  House  or  in  the  Senate,  as 
will  be  shown  by  future  votes  in  that  body  and  by  votes  in  this  body  upon 
the  question  of  sugar. — Congressional  Record,  page  5020,  volume  26,  part  5, 
May  21,  1894. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  131 

Yet,  Mr.  President,  these  very  Senators  are  here  today  ready  to 
vote  for  a  differential  greater  than  that  which  they  then  denounced 
in  unsparing  terms  and  which  they  even  insinuated  challenged  the 
honesty  of  the  men  who  supported  it. 

But  I  am  told  this  is  ancient  literature.  It  is  not  so  very  old. 
It  is  new  enough  to  be  important  and  instructive. 

The  distinguished  Senator  from  New  Hampshire  [Mr.  CHAND 
LER]  commented  upon  the  situation  thus : 

I  wish  again  to  show  (i)  that  duties  on  sugar  have  failed  to  develop  the 
home  industry,  because  cane  sugar  can  not  possibly  be  supplied  in  quantities 
to  meet  more  than  one-fifth  of  the  American  consumption ;  (2)  that  under  the 
bounty  system  the  growth  of  the  cane-sugar  and  beet  industry  is  rapidly 
increasing  our  home  production,  and  (3)  that  the  abolition  of  the  bounty  and 
the  return  of  the  duty  system,  the  duty  to  be  40  per  cent  ad  valorem  and  one- 
eight  of  a  cent  a  pound  in  addition  on  refined  sugar,  will  tend  to  check  the 
American  production  of  sugar  and  stop  the  growth  of  the  beet-sugar  indus 
try,  while  unnecessarily  taxing  the  American  consumers  over  $60,000,000 
annually,  and  enriching  the  monopoly  known  as  the  sugar  trust  by  devices  which 
will  enrich  its  owners  nearly  $75,000,000  profits  during  the  next  year  and  per 
manently  fasten  the  trust  upon  the  households  of  America  at  a  cost  of  $70,000,- 
ooo,  one-half  of  which  will  go  as  an  unfair  profit  to  the  trust  and  the  other  half 
into  the  Treasury  as  a  tax,  not  needed,  upon  one  of  the  necessaries  of  life. — 
Congressional  Record,  page  5719,  volume  26,  part  6,  June  4,  1894. 

This  speech  surely  could  not  be  made  upon  that  side  of  the 
Chamber  now,  for  our  Republican  friends  tender  us  a  direct  propo 
sition  to  impose  the  tax  which  they  formerly  repudiated.  They  now 
threaten  to  inflict  it  in  a  more  obnoxious  form  and  to  an  exaggerated 
extent. 

The  "  American  breakfast  table  "  was  a  source  of  great  solicitude 
on  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber  during  that  debate.  We  were  told 
that  the  poor  man  was  entitled  to  have  his  sugar  without  any  tariff 
mixture.  Untaxed  sugar  was  something  that  the  Republican  party 
guaranteed  to  every  American  consumer. 

He  must  have  sugar,  and  he  must  have  it  free  from  tax.  Yet, 
Mr.  President,  the  same  distinguished  gentlemen,  I  repeat,  who  at 
that  time  so  roundly  denounced  the  Democracy  in  this  Chamber 
because  of  the  imposition  of  a  small  sugar  tariff,  are  here  today 
levying  a  greater  tax,  as  the  result  of  all  their  experience  and  in 
the  face  of  their  own  advertised  promises  and  record.  Even  the 
Senator  from  Iowa  [Mr.  ALLISON],  whom  we  all  know  to  be  an 
extremely  conservative  man  and  an  able  Senator,  made  this  remark: 

Mr.  President,  if  I  had  my  way,  I  should  strike  from  this  bill  every  vestige 
which  provides  a  duty  upon  sugar,  and  I  would  continue  the  bounty,  as  we  are 
bound  under  our  contract  until  1905  by  a  moral  obligation  which  is  as  binding 
on  the  United  States  as  any  contract  that  I  may  make  can  be  binding  upon  me. 
And  if  additional  revenue  is  required,  I  would  look  around  among  the  luxuries 
that  are  consumed  by  our  people  and  find  that  revenue. — Congressional  Record, 
page  5703,  volume  26,  part  6,  June  6,  1894. 

The  Senator  from  Maine  [Mr.  HALE]  complained  often  of  the 
tax  upon  the  breakfast  table,  and  he  truly  said,  "  High  duty  on 
sugar  puts  up  the  price  to  the  consumer."  (CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD,, 
volume  26,  part  5,  May  18,  1894.) 

Then  the  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  [Mr.  ALDRICH]  made  this 
comment,  to  be  found  on  page  4670,  volume  26,  part  5,  of  the  CON 
GRESSIONAL  RECORD,  May  12,  1894: 

If  it  is  to  be  the  principle  of  the  Democratic  party  and  of  the  majority  of  the 
committee  in  this  Chamber  that  the  duty  upon  luxuries  is  to  be  decreased  for 


132  SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

the  purpose  of  furnishing  an  excuse  to  increase  the  duties  upon  necessaries  of 
life  like  sugar,  then  we  had  better  understand  it  at  once. 

If  now  we  are  to  have  a  superlatively  high  duty  upon  sugar,  we 
had  better  understand  it  at  once. 

The  following  colloquy  occurred.  It  appears  on  page  4914,  vol 
ume  26,  part  5,  of  the  CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD,  May  18,  1894.  The 
Senator  from  Maine  [Mr.  HALE]  said: 

The  duty  upon  sugar  will  be  paid  by  every  man,  woman  and  child  in  the 
United  States. 

That  is  true;  there  is  no  doubt  about  it.  I  affirm  it.  Then  the 
Senator  from  Rhode  Island  [Mr.  ALDRICI-I]  said: 

The  increase  of  taxation  and  revenue  from  sugar  will  be  at  least  $50,000,000. 

We  become  most  thoughtful  in  the  presence  of  that  proposition. 
The  prospect  of  the  imposition  of  $50,000,000  of  taxation  upon  the 
American  people  was  not  cheerful.  Then  the  Senator  from  Maine 
[Mr.  HALE]  said: 

So  that  a  part  of  this  scheme  is  to  take  off  $38,000,000  upon  imports  which 
are  pure  luxuries  and  not  used  in  everyday  life,  and  to  make  up  for  that  reduc 
tion  the  committee  propose  to  add  $50,000,000  to  the  sugar  duties  and  tax  the 
breakfast  table  of  every  man,  woman  and  child  in  the  United  States.  Is  that 
true? 

Mr.  ALDRICH.     That  is  true. 

And  it  is  true  now;  it  is  true  of  this  bill;  it  is  just  as  true  now 
as  it  was  then,  and  with  this  bill  superlatively  so — if  I  may  use  such 
an  expression — in  this,  that  the  rates  of  duty  are  so  much  higher 
that  every  hundred  pounds  of  sugar  under  the  provisions  of  this  bill 
will  cost  probably  $1.18  or  $1.20  more  than  it  does  under  the  prevail 
ing  Wilson  bill. 

I  now  refer  to  a  statement  made  by  the  Senator  from  Connecticut 
[Mr.  PLATT],  which  I  wish  to  read — a  very  pertinent  statement,  to 
be  found  on  page  4707,  volume  36,  part  5,  of  the  CONGRESSIONAL 
RECORD,  in  the  proceedings  of  May  14,  1894.  He  said: 

How  are  you  who  have  denounced  this  duty  upon  refined  sugar — this  con 
cession  to  the  sugar  trust — going  to  vote  for  it  now?  How  great  must  be  the 
compulsion  which  obliges  Senators  thus  to  swallow  not  only  the  words  but  the 
opinions  of  years  and  vote  for  a  prohibitive  duty  on  refined  sugar. 

The  Senator  from  Maine  [Mr.  HALE]  also  remarked: 

Mr.  President,  there  is  one  thing  that  is  as  certain  as  the  coming  of  tides 
and  sunrise,  and  that  is  that  whatever  happens  to  be  put  finally  into  the  bill  and 
is  comprehended  in  its  features  when  it  passes,  the  American  people  will  not 
go  long  without  a  return  to  the  feature  of  free  sugar  for  the  breakfast  tables  of 
the  people,  thereby  saving  to  those  breakfast  tables  an  annual  tax  of  between 
$60,000,000  and  $70,000,000. — Congressional  Record,  page  5764,  volume  26,  part  6, 
June  5,  1894- 

Again,  Mr.  President,  I  must  say  my  feelings  are  outraged. 
This  breakfast  table,  around  which  our  Republican  brethren  rallied 
in  1894,  is  turned  over  to  its  modern  autocrat — the  sugar  trust. 

The  Senator  from  New  Hampshire  [Mr.  CHANDLER]  commented 
at  the  same  time  upon  the  bill  as  follows : 

Mr.  President,  the  sugar  show  is  about  to  close — 

We  are  now  very  near  the  end  of  the  conference,  Mr.  President, 
it  will  be  observed — 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  133 

The  Populists  have  got  free  barbed  wire  and  free  lumber.  The  Democrats 
have  got  the  Populists,  and  the  sugar  trust  has  got  them  all.  The  American 
people  are  to  be  taxed  next  year,  and  year  by  year,  $60,000,000  annually  upon  a 
necessity  of  life  solely  in  order  that  the  shameless  boast  of  the  sugar  trust  in  the 
Sugar  Trade  Journal,  that  the  trust  controls  Congress,  may  be  carried  out. 
(Page  5774,  volume  26,  part  6,  June  5,  1894.) 

The  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  [Mr.  ALDRICH]  likewise  made 
the  following"  contribution  to  the  debate  of  1894  (CONGRESSIONAL 
RECORD,  volume  26,  part  6,  page  5775,  June  5,  1894)  : 

And  I  say  to  you  now  that  when  this  question  is  reached  in  the  Senate,  we 
shall  try  on  this  side  of  the  Chamber  to  secure,  if  possible,  a  vote  for  free  sugar. 

Let  me  ask  Republican  Senators  whether  they  are  prepared  to 
secure  a  vote  for  free  sugar  at  this  time? 

This  struggle  will  not  end — 
The  Senator  continues — 

This  struggle  will  not  end  today  in  the  Senate ;  it  certainly  will  be  continued 
before  the  American  people  and  their  judgment  taken.  1  tell  you.  Senators,  that 
no  act  of  yours,  no  provision  in  this  bill,  will  be  so  certain  to  bring  upon  you 
and  your  party  the  condemnation  of  the  American  people  as  this  one ;  and  when 
I  say  "  your  party  "  I  include  also  the  representatives  of  the  Third  Party.  Those 
gentlemen  have  always  asserted  that  they  were  the  friends  of  the  people.  They 
have  signalized  that  friendship  today  by  joining  their  Democratic  allies  in  forc 
ing  upon  the  people  of  the  United  States  this  unjustifiable,  indefensible  and 
infamous  [sugar]  tax.  I  said  this  tax  [sugar]  was  infamous,  and  if  I  could 
employ  any  stronger  word  than  that  in  characterizing  it,  1  should  be  glad 
to  do  so. 

Is  it  not  sad  to  reflect,  Mr.  President,  that  a  great  party,  within 
whose  ranks  these  patriotic  sentiments  were  born,  should  change 
its  tactics  and  adopt  the  very  policy  which  it  then  characterized 
as  infamous? 

In  a  general  way,  and  as  peculiarly  relevant  here,  I  add  the  fol 
lowing  history,  written  by  our  opponents  during  this  same  discus 
sion.  I  again  quote  from  the  Senator  last  cited : 

Mr.  President,  it  is  evident  that  the  die  is  cast — 
Evident  !— 

The  spectacle  of  a  great  party  responsible  for  legislation,  but  hopelessly  and 
helplessly  under  the  control  of  influences  outside  of  this  Chamber,  must  be  a 
humiliating  one  to  the  American  people. 

I  confess  to  some  diffidence  in  continuing  this,  but  as  a  matter 
of  duty  I  will  proceed : 

If  the  Senators  upon  the  other  side  of  this  aisle  should  vote  upon  the  prop 
ositions  contained  in  this  schedule  according  to  their  conscience  and  judgment, 
it  would  receive  the  almost  universal  condemnation  of  Democratic  Senators. 

A  substitution  of  party  name  should  be  made  here. 

Not  over  six  Senators  upon  that  side  believe  in  the  justice  or  equity  of  the 
propositions  now  to  be  approved  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Certain  per 
sons  not  known  to  the  Constitution  or  the  laws,  not  recognized  as  any  part  of 
the  National  Government,  have  demanded  that  certain  provisions  shall  be  writ 
ten  in  the  statutes  of  the  United  States,  and  the  members  of  a  great  party 
cravenly  submit  to  these  demands. — Congressional  Record,  page  5775,  volume  26, 
part  6,  June  5,  1894. 

And  yet  the  same  organization,  the  representatives  of  which 
stood  by,  and  if  they  did  not  applaud  the  sentiments  it  was  because 


134  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

the  decorum  of  the  body  prevented  it,  is  today  not  only  sanctioning 
a  bill  containing  larger  differentials  than  the  Wilson  and  House  bills, 
but  which  likewise  imposes  a  double  tax  upon  the  American  people. 

And  yet  here  we  have  this  tremendous  duty  upon  sugar,  and  the 
bounties,  where  are  they? 

The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  HOAR]  used  language 
which  exactly  fits  the  case,  if  I  am  permitted  to  eliminate  from  it  the 
word  "  Democratic  "  and  substitute  "  Republican."  As  thus  revised, 
I  will  read  it : 

Stand  up,  Republican  Senators,  if  you  will,  and  say  that  you  are  personally 
in  favor  of  this  bill — the  whole  of  you,  a  majority  -of  you,  a  tenth  part  of  you. 
You  will  not  do  it.  "  We  are  going  to  vote  for  this  bill  and  stop  your  mouths,  if 
we  can,"  you  tell  us — "  not  because  we  believe  in  it " — they  say  it  is  wicked 
through  and  through — "  not  because  the  American  people  believe  in  it " — they 
say  it  is  wicked  through  and  through — but  because  two  or  three  gentlemen  have 
got  together  in  a  committee  room  or  a  corner  somewhere,  like  the  three  witches 
in  Macbeth,  and  concocted  this  hellbroth  which  we  have  promised  them  to 
swallow. — Congressional  Record,  page  5062,  volume  26,  part  6,  May  22,  1894. 

I  find  a  very  interesting  statement  from  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Vermont  [Mr.  MORRILL]  concerning  the  methods  of  preparing 
the  Wilson  bill,  and  especially  the  sugar  schedule.  It  is  singularly 
pertinent  to  the  present  proceedings,  and  will  be  found  on  page  3811, 
volume  26,  part  4,  of  the  CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD,  in  the  proceedings 
of  April  1 8,  1894: 

Concerning  the  rates  of  duties  reported  in  the  tariff  bill,  it  is  no  violation 
of  the  confidential  relations  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Finance  to  state  now 
that  they  were  all  fixed  and  determined  without  the  votes  of  the  Republican 
members,  and  even  against  the  votes  of  any  hesitating  or  divergent  minority 
of  Democratic  members.  Thus  many  of  the  most  important  questions  may 
have  been  determined  by  the  small  fraction  of  three  or  four  of  a  committee  of 
eleven. 

Sad  to  say,  these  comments  apply  with  greater  force  to  the  sit 
uation  which  now  surrounds  us. 

I  also  find  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr. 
LODGE]  commenting  graphically  upon  the  outrages  assumed  to  have 
been  perpetrated  by  the  Democratic  majority  of  the  Finance  Com 
mittee  upon  their  unfortunate  brethren.  On  page  4350,  volume  26, 
page  5,  of  the  CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD,  in  the  proceedings  of  May  2, 
1894,  that  Senator  said : 

It  must  be  remembered  that  there  have  been  practically  no  public  hear 
ings  upon  the  bill.  There  have  not  been  the  usual  opportunities  to  the  persons 
affected  by  it  to  present  their  views  before  committees  in  regard  to  its  pro 
visions.  No  hearings  have  been  given  here. 

The  able  senior  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  HOAR]  added 
his  significant  criticism  thus : 

I  never  before  heard  of  a  financier  who  made  up  a  budget  and  did  not  have 
some  expectation  of  the  amount  he  could  depend  upon  from  particular  sources. 
—  Congressional  Record,  volume  26,  part  5,  page  4483. 

The  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  said  (RECORD,  volume  26,  part 
5,  page  4823)  : 

And  I  hope  that  in  this  particular  case  some  of  the  Senators  upon  the  other 
side,  representing  some  of  the  Southern  States,  may  break  away  from  this  iron- 
bound  caucus  rule  and  vote  for  one  thing  which  they  believe  in  and  not  submit 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  135 

their  consciences  entirely  to  the  keeping  of  the  Senator  from  Arkansas ;  but 
once  a  day  at  least,  merely  for  a  change,  that  they  shall  vote  for  amendments 
or  suggestions  which  commend  themselves  to  their  judgment  and  which  are  in 
the  interests  of  the  people  whom  they  represent. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  not  unfeeling  enough  to  again  read  this 
article  and  substitute  the  names  of  the  distinguished  Senators  on  the 
other  side  in  charge  of  the  present  bill  for  that  of  the  Senator  from 
Arkansas.  The  pertinency  of  the  citation  is  manifest. 

I  wish  also  to  quote  the  language  of  the  Senator  from  New 
Hampshire  [Mr.  CHANDLER]  : 

There  is  not  a  word  or  a  line  in  this  bill  from  beginning  to  end  that  was 
constructed  in  the  sunlight.  It  has  been  constructed  in  the  deep  holes  of  this 
Capitol;  it  has  been  constructed  in  dark  by-places;  it  has  been  constructed  in 
secret,  out-of-sight  places,  and,  Mr.  President,  it  ought  to  be  smitten  to  death, 
if  not  by  the  sunlight  of  heaven,  by  lightning  that  ought  to  flash  from  the 
heavens  and  utterly  tear  it  to  pieces  and  destroy  it. — Congressional  Record, 
page  5775,  volume  26,  part  6,  June  5,  1894. 

While  the  distinguished  Senator  otherwise  declares,  I  must  deem 
it  probable  when  he  thus  spoke  that  he  foresaw  the  present  mal- 
conduct  of  his  party. 

Certainly  there  has  been  much  secret  work  here.  I  do  not  doubt 
that  the  Senator  would  like  to  know  how  the  stock-transfer  tax 
came  to  be  eliminated  by  the  Republican  conferees. 

I  will  not  further  discuss  this  feature  of  pending  legislation.  I 
think  the  American  people  understand  it ;  and  when  the  next  tariff 
bill  is  framed,  it  is  more  than  probable  that  no  differential  at  all  will 
be  accorded  the  sugar  trust.  The  country  is  weary  because  of  the 
interference  in  legislation  of  those  who  hold  so  much  of  the  wealth 
of  the  world.  Their  greed,  selfishness,  and  corruption  should  exclude 
them  from  participancy  in  any  advantages  possible  to  attend  tariff 
legislation. 

THE  DUTY  ON   WINES. 

The  tariff  act  of  1894  contained  the  following  provision  with 
reference  to  that  class  of  liquors  which  include  clarets : 

Still  wines,  including  ginger  wine  or  ginger  cordial  and  vermuth,  in  casks 
or  packages  other  than  bottles  or  jugs  (i),  if  containing  14  per  cent,  or  less  of 
absolute  alcohol,  30  cents  per  gallon;  if  containing  more  than  14  per  cent,  of 
absolute  alcohol,  50  cents  per  gallon.  In  bottles  or  jugs,  per  case  of  one  dozen 
bottles  or  jugs,  containing  each  not  more  than  i  quart  and  more  than  i 
pint,  or  twenty-four  bottles  or  jugs  containing  each  not  more  than  i  pint  (2), 
$1.60  per  case;  and  any  excess  beyond  these  quantities  found  in  such  bottles 
or  jugs  shall  be  subject  to  a  duty  of  5  cents  per  pint  or  fractional  part  thereof, 
but  no  separate  or  additional  duty  shall  be  assessed  on  the  bottles  or  jugs. 

The  pending  bill  as  it  passed  the  House  (eliminating  a  proviso 
not  important  to  this  discussion)  was  as  follows : 

Still  wines,  including  ginger  wine  or  ginger  cordial  and  vermuth,  in  casks, 
60  cents  per  gallon;  in  bottles  or  jugs,  per  case  of  i  dozen  bottles  or  jugs,  con 
taining  each  not  more  than  i  quart  and  more  than  i  pint,  or  24  bottles  or  jugs 
containing  each  not  more  than  i  pint,  $2  per  case ;  and  any  excess  beyond 
these  quantities  found  in  such  bottles  or  jugs  shall  be  subject  to  a  duty  of  7 
cents  per  pint  or  fractional  part  thereof,  but  no  separate  or  additional  duty 
shall  be  assessed  on  the  bottles  or  jugs. 


136  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

The  Senate  amended  this  provision  by  reducing  the  tax  from 
60  cents  per  gallon  to  a  much  lower  rate.  The  language  was  as 
follows : 

296.  Still  wines,  including  ginger  wine  or  ginger  cordial  and  vermuth,  in 
casks  or  packages  other  than  bottles  or  jugs,  if  containing  14  per  cent,  or  less 
of  absolute  alcohol,  30  cents  per  gallon;  if  containing  more  than  14  per  cent, 
of  absolute  alcohol,  50  cents  per  gallon.  In  bottles  or  jugs,  per  case  of  i  dozen 
bottles  or  jugs,  containing  each  not  more  than  i  quart  and  more  than  I  pint, 
or  24  bottles  or  jugs  containing  each  not  more  than  i  pint,  $1.60  per  case;  and 
any  excess  beyond  these  quantities  found  in  such  bottles  or  jugs  shall  be  sub 
ject  to  a  duty  of  5  cents  per  pint  or  fractional  part  thereof,  but  no  separate 
or  additional  duty  shall  be  assessed  on  the  bottles  or  jugs. 

The  conferees  reported  an  amendment  exactly  accordant  with 
the  Senate  proposition  except  that  30  was  raised  to  40.  (Confer 
ence  report,  page  99.)  It  is  understood  that  one  of  the  members  of 
the  bimetallic  diplomatic  commission  asked  that  this  sacrifice  of  Cali 
fornia  industries  might  be  made  in  order  that  he  might  more  easily 
persuade  the  French  Government  to  come  to  terms.  This  statement 
would  seem  absurd,  or  rather  it  would  seem  too  absurd  for  credence, 
were  it  not  for  the  presence  of  proof.  We  find  a  similarly  silly 
declaration  in  the  so-called  reciprocity  clause  agreed  upon  by  the 
conference. 

The  President  is  there  given  authority  to  reduce  the  tariff  on 
champagne  25  per  cent.,  or  from  $8  per  dozen  quarts  to  $6  per  dozen 
quarts,  and  he  is  also  permitted  to  reduce  the  tariff  on  still  wines 
and  vermuth  in  casks  to  35  cents  per  gallon.  Ordinarily,  alcoholic 
beverages  have  been  considered  the  proper  subject  for  a  high  tariff. 
This  ought  especially  to  be  the  case  when  these  articles  are  produced 
in  the  United  States.  When  this  subject  was  before  the  Senate 
earlier  in  the  discussion,  I  inserted  in  the  RECORD  a  letter  from  Hon. 
M.  M.  Estee,  of  California,  which  I  deemed  and  still  deem  exceedingly 
pertinent.  It  is  as  follows : 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  May  24,  1897. 

MY  DEAR  SENATOR:  The  tariff  schedule  adopted  by  the  United  States 
Senate,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  American  wines,  is  unjust,  and  the  grape  grow 
ers  of  California  are  practically  a  unit  in  opposition  to  it.  By  request  of 
some  of  the  leading  producers  of  our  State,  I  venture  to  write  you  on  this 
topic. 

You  are  aware  that  personally  I  have  ceased  to  be  interested  in  grape  cul 
ture  in  California,  but,  in  common  with  all  of  our  people,  I  am  deeply  inter 
ested  in  whatever  secures  the  prosperity  of  the  producers  of  our  State  and 
country. 

i.  There  is  but  a  very  small  portion  of  the  earth's  surface  where  the  finer 
qualities  of  the  European  grape  can  be  raised.  These  grapes  never  will  pros 
per  in  the  Tropics,  nor,  indeed,  in  the  temperate  zones,  except  in  especially 
favorable  localities.  California  is  the  only  part  of  the  American  Union  where 
the  European  vine  has  thus  far  been  largely  cultivated.  The  culture  of  the 
grape  is  an  infant  industry  so  far  as  our  country  is  concerned,  and  if  the 
principle  of  protection  means  anything,  it  means  that  infant  or  undeveloped 
industries  shall  be  protected  against  unfair  foreign  competition. 

That  is  what  we  ask,  and  all  we  expect.  The  inquiry  then  arises,  What 
should  be  done  to  accomplish  this  purpose?  It  goes  without  saying  that  all 
foreign  wines  brought  to  the  United  States  are  a  luxury  which  none  but  the 
wealthy  can  enjoy,  and  this  is  so  whether  high  import  duties  are  imposed  on 
them  or  not,  as  the  American  consumer  of  the  middle  classes  uses  American 
wines  only ;  and  hence  the  question  of  protection  to  American  wines  resolve's 
itself  into  a  contest  between  the  rich  American  consumer  and  the  foreign 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  137 

producer   on   the  one    hand   and   the    industrious    American   producer    and   the 
poor   American   consumer   on   the   other. 

•2.  It  is  claimed  that  under  the  Senate  amendments  of  the  Dingley  tariff 
bill  this  American  industry  will  be  destroyed.  Ought  this  to  be  done?  The 
amount  invested  in  vineyards  in  California  now  exceeds  $50,000,000.  This  is 
divided  between  the  raisin,  the  wine,  and  the  brandy  industries.  During  the 
last  four  years  there  has  been  a  great  depression  in  the  grape  culture,  caused 
largely  by  the  so-called  Wilson  tariff  bill,  which  placed  the  duty  on  dry  wines 
at  30  cents  per  gallon.  This  was  raised  in  the  Dingley  bill  to  60  cents;  but  the 
Senate  Finance  Committee  has  cut  it  down  to  the  old  figure  of  30  cents;  and 
not  only  that,  but  it  has  changed  the  duty  on  imported  wines  in  glass  to  $i  a 
case  of  a  dozen  bottles. 

This  is  an  actual  discrimination  in  favor  of  the  foreign  product,  because 
the  one-dollar  duty  does  not  meet  the  difference  in  the  price  of  wages  in 
France  and  America.  To  illustrate,  in  the  wine  districts  of  France  the  aver 
age  wages  paid  to  labor  is  from  li  to  3  francs  a  day,  the  laborer  boarding 
himself,  except  his  lunch.  In  California  the  price  of  labor  for  the  same  work 
is  from  75  cents  to  $i  a  day  and  board.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  if  it  were  a 
mere  matter  of  the  value  of  labor  in  cultivating  the  vine,  America  could  not 
on  even  terms  compete  with  France  in  the  making  of  wine.  In  this  connec 
tion,  it  ought  also  to  be  observed  that  the  interest  on  money  in  California  is 
from  7  to  10  per  cent,  per  annum;  in  France,  Germany  and  Italy  it  is  from 
3  to  4  per  cent,  per  annum.  And  it  should  also  be  noted  that  Germany  charges 
an  import  duty  on  wines  brought  into  that  country  in  glass  of  $1.95  a  case; 
Italy,  $1.44  a  case  and  France,  on  all  wines  above  10.9  of  alcoholic  strength, 
the  same  proportionate  duty  she  imposes  on  spirits. 

The  Senate  amendments  to  the  Dingley  bill  are  not  only  wrong  to  the  pro 
ducers,  but  are  unjust  to  the  whole  people.  For  instance,  the  duty  on  wines 
of  an  absolute  alcoholic  strength  of  from  14  to  24  degrees  is  50  cents  a  gallon, 
while  the  duty  on  spirits  whose  absolute  alcoholic  strength  is  50  is  $2.25  a 
gallon.  Thus  the  duty  on  twenty-four  fiftieths  of  a  gallon  of  spirits,  when 
blended  with  wine,  is  only  50  cents;  but  when  it  comes  into  the  country  in  the 
form  of  pure  spirits  the  duty  would  be  over  a  dollar,  thus  discriminating 
in  favor  of  foreign  wines.  And,  again,  this  would  encourage  adulteration, 
because  the  ordinary  strength  of  California  wines  is  about  ni  degrees  of 
alcohol,  while  under  this  bill  the  importer  could  bring  in  wine  braced  up  to 
24  in  spirits,  and  by  the  use  of  water  and  other  substances  dilute  it  until  it 
was  down  to  the  usual  strength  of  ni  degrees  of  spirits,  and  thus  make  more 
than  two  gallons  of  wine  out  of  one. 

And,  again,  it  is  a  notorious  fact  that  the  French  officials  have  recently 
reported  to  the  French  Government  that  a  considerable  portion  of  the  wines 
of  France  are  adulterated.  Whatever  may  be  said  of  California  wines  by 
people  who  underrate  our  own  productions,  yet  no  one  ever  doubted  but 
what  they  were  pure. 

3.  As  a  revenue  proposition  the  Senate  amendments  to  the  Dingley  bill  in 
relation  to  wines  would  prove  a  failure.  As  before  stated,  it  is  well  under 
stood  that  imported  wines  of  the  better  grades  are  drank  only  by  wealthy 
people,  and  it  is  also  a  fact  that  the  chief  test  of  the  value  of  these  wines  with 
the  American  user  is  the  cost  of  such  wines,  rather  than  their  quality  and 
purity,  and  thus  50  cents  a  gallon  duty  on  dry  wines  (that  is,  those  under  12 
per  cent,  of  alcoholic  strength)  will  not  perceptibly  affect  the  amount  of  the 
importation  of  wine.  Such  a  duty  would,  however,  protect  our  own  pro 
ducers,  and  would  throw  into  the  market  in  competition  with  imported  wines 
an  absolutely  pure  article,  and  which  is  improving  in  quality  every  year,  and 
thus,  while  a  5O-cent  duty  would  increase  American  revenue,  it  would  at  the 
same  time  sustain  an  American  industry. 

It  must  be  noted  also  in  this  connection  that  the  duties  on  wines  and  liquors 
are  high  in  all  countries  where  any  duty  at  all  is  imposed.  As  a  rule,  this 
duty  is  imposed  for  the  single  purpose  of  producing  revenue.  The  conten 
tion  that  a  lower  rate  of  duty  on  imported  wines  would  stimulate  the  impor 
tation,  and  thus  increase  the  revenue,  has  by  the  experiences  of  the  past  proven 
to  be  an  error.  For  instance,  the  importation  of  wines  in  the  United  States 
in  1893  was  3-354,078  gallons.  The  duty  on  these  wines  at  50  cents  per  gallon 
amounted  to  $1,727,039.14,  while  the  amount  of  wine  imported  in  1896,  when 
the  duty  was  30  and  50  cents  a  gallon,  was  2,768,485  gallons,  and  the  duty  col- 

10 


138  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

lected  amounted  to  $1,420,251.90.  So  you  can  readily  see  that  if  these  Senate 
amendments  to  the  Dingley  bill  were  prompted  for  the  purpose  of  increasing 
the  revenue,  they  will  prove  a  failure. 

The  fact  is,  France  never  has  been  a  good  market  for  American  produc 
tions.  We  therefore  owe  no  commercial  obligations  to  France  that  we  have 
not  thrice  paid;  but  even  if  we  did,  is  it  either  fair  or  wise  for  our  brethren 
in  the  more  populous  portions  of  our  country  to  pass  laws  which  will  protect 
the  industries  in  which  they  are  engaged,  but  at  the  same  time  forget  their 
kindred  in  the  remoter  portions  of  this  Republic?  They  should  remember 
that  while  their  wool  and  iron  and  coal  and  their  products  of  the  farm  are 
protected,  our  fruits  and  wines  should  be  equally  protected ;  and  thus  by 
developing  all  the  resources  of  every  part  of  the  country  they  will  increase 
the  average  wealth  of  the  people,  maintain  prices  for  labor,  give  to  capital 
remunerative  investments,  and  make  our  country  self-supporting  by  produc 
ing  nearly  everything  that  our  people  consume. 

Yours,  sincerely,  MORRIS  M.  ESTEE. 

Hon.  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE, 

United  States  Senator,  Washington,  D.  C. 

In  California,  Republican  orators  have  burdened  the  air  with 
their  denunciations  of  those  Democrats  who  have  favored  a  moderate 
tariff  upon  wines.  I  have  always  contended  that  50  cents  per  gallon 
on  clarets  was  eminently  reasonable  and  served  only  to  exclude  con 
coctions  unfit  for  consumption.  The  animus  in  this  respect  of  the 
so-called  reciprocity  clause  is  further  found  in  the  provision  contained 
in  section  3,  which  allows  the  President  to  agree  to  a  reduction  upon 
the  tariff  on  brandy  to  $1.75  per  proof  gallon,  as  against  $2.25. 
(Section  288,  page  94,  conference  report.)  Grape  brandy  is  produced 
to  a  large  extent  in  California,  and  this  reciprocity  provision  is 
designated  to  further  interfere  with  an  industry  by  no  means  over- 
profitable. 

COAL. 

California  has  for  many  years  paid  practically  all  the  tariff  that 
has  been  collected  on  account  of  the  importation  of  coal.  Heretofore 
anthracite  has  been  admitted  free.  The  Senate  amended  the  free 
list  and  practically  imposed  a  duty  upon  anthracite.  A  large  amount 
of  this  variety  of  coal  has  been  brought  to  San  Francisco  during  the 
last  few  years  by  way  of  ballast.  We  produce  no  coal  of  that  quality 
in  California  or  in  the  immediate  neighborhood,  and  our  people,  I 
believe,  are  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  lowest-priced  fuel  obtainable. 
I  opposed  the  duty  upon  coal,  believing  it  to  be  entirely  unjus 
tifiable  and  knowing  that  the  people  of  California  paid  not  less  than 
$600,000  per  annum  on  this  account  alone.  The  conference  com 
mittee  modified  the  Senate  amendment  slightly,  and  permitted  the 
admission  of  anthracite  testing  above  92  degrees  carbon  free  of  duty. 

The  influence  of  the  coal  barons  of  the  East  has  been  felt  in  this 
connection.  This  is  especially  noticeable  in  the  provisions  affecting 
the  use  of  coal  for  fuel  on  vessels  propelled  by  steam.  Until  the 
enactment  of  the  McKinley  bill  vessels  of  this  description  engaged  in 
trade  with  foreign  countries,  and  also  in  the  coastwise  trade,  were 
entitled,  if  of  American  register,  to  coal  for  fuel  free  of  duty.  That 
is  to  say,  full  drawback  was  allowed. 

When  the  McKinley  bill  became  a  law,  it  was  not  intended  to 
change  this  regulation,  but  the  Government  claimed  that  as  the  draw 
back  provision  was  not  repeated  in  the  McKinley  law  it  was  repealed 
by  implication.  This  contention  was  overruled  by  the  circuit  court 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  139 

and  court  of  appeals  of  the  Ninth  circuit,  but  the  judgment  of  the 
latter  tribunal  was  reversed  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  one  of  the  justices  dissenting,  and  the  vessels  referred  to  were 
held  to  be  not  entitled  to  free  coal. 

I  suggested  the  restoration  of  the  old  law,  which  had  been  thus 
inadvertently  abrogated.  But  a  few  interested  people  of  influence 
compelled  the  Republican  majority  to  deprive  coastwise  vessels  of 
this  privilege,  but  permitted  the  amendment  tendered  by  me  to  stand 
as  far  as  it  concerned  steamers  engaged  in  foreign  trade,  or  in  trade 
between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  ports  of  the  United  States.  Here, 
again,  the  trust  power  manifested  itself,  and  the  subordination  of 
public  to  private  interests  was  once  more  disclosed. 

ANTITOXIN. 

For  years  vaccine  virus  has  been  upon  the  free  list.  It  is  a  matter 
of  common  knowledge  that  the  discovery  of  antitoxin  furnished  to 
the  world  a  specific  for  diphtheria.  The  General  Board  of  Appraisers 
of  the  United  States  decided  that  this  most  valuable  and  beneficial 
article  was  admissible,  under  the  "  vaccine-virus  "  clause,  free  of  duty. 
American  manufacturers,  or  those  who  intended  to  manufacture  this 
medicine,  differed  from  the  Board  of  Appraisers,  and  the  matter  was 
finally  submitted  to  and  decided  by  the  United  States  district  court. 

The  opinion  is  exceedingly  brief.  I  read  from  77  Federal 
Reporter,  page  607 : 

This  was  an  appeal  by  the  Government  from  a  decision  of  the  Board  of 
General  Appraisers,  reversing  the  decision  of  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New 
York  as  to  the  classification  of  certain  merchandise,  imported  by  Schulze, 
Berge  &  Koechl.  The  merchandise  was  invoiced  as  "blood  serum—  diph 
theria  remedy,"  and  it  was  shown  to  be  an  agent  for  the  prevention  and  cure 
of  diphtheria,  produced  from  the  blood  of  horses  by  treatment  with  the 
diphtheria  poison.  The  collector  assessed  a  duty  of  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem, 
as  upon  a  medicinal  preparation.  The  importers  claimed  an  exemption  from 
duty  directly  or  by  similitude,  or  component  of  chief  value,  under  paragraphs 
367,  404,  470,  or  664,  act  1894. 

Judge  Wheeler,  in  deciding  the  case,  said : 

The  tariff  act  of  1894  places  a  duty,  by  paragraph  59,  on  "  all  medicinal  prep 
arations  not  specially  provided  for,"  and  by  paragraph  664  puts  on  the  free 
list  "vaccine  virus."  This  importation  is  of  antitoxin.  It  was  classified  under 
the  former  paragraph,  and  the  protest  raised  the  question  whether  it  should 
be  free  under  the  latter.  Antitoxin  is  a  different  thing  from  vaccine  virus. 
It  comes  from  a  different  source,  is  used  for  a  different,  although  somewhat 
similar,  purpose,  and  operates  in  a  different  way.  The  former  seems  to  cure 
disease,  and  the  latter  introduces  a  milder  form  to  obviate  what  would  be  worse. 
The  latter  has  such  a  well-defined  meaning,  applicable  to  one  thing,  that,  against 
a  first  impression,  it  does  not  now  seem  capable  of  covering,  by  any  implication, 
such  a  different  thing  as  the  former.  Decision  of  General  Appraisers  reversed. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  according  to  this  statement  antitoxin  is 
manufactured — if  it  can  be  called  a  manufactured  article  at?  all — 
from  the  blood  of  the  horse.  In  other  words,  the  diphtheria  poison 
is  infused  and  the  blood  drawn  from  the  animal,  and,  without  any 
other  processes  than  those  which  naturally  follow,  the  antidote 
results. 

While  engaged  in  the  investigation  of  another  matter  I  noticed 
this  adjudication  and  found  myself  compelled  to  doubt  its  accuracy, 
and  since  I  have  examined  into  the  subject  of  the  production  of 


140  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

antitoxin  I  have  made  up  my  mind  that  it  is  in  no  sense  a  medicinal 
preparation.  It  can  not  be  said  that  the  giving  of  healthy  food  to  a 
healthy  horse  and  the  drawing  of  blood  from  the  animal  and  the  sub 
sequent  evolution  of  the  material  thus  pruduced  is  the  u  preparation  " 
of  a  medicine.  However,  the  court  has  so  held  and  no  appeal  has  been 
taken.  It  seemed  to  me  that  if  vaccine  virus  may  be  given  to  the 
people  regardless  of  wealth  or  station  free  of  duty,  the  same  policy 
ought  to  be  pursued  with  reference  to  antitoxin.  One  would  rather 
find  smallpox  in  his  family  than  diphtheria  unless  he  might  use  anti 
toxin  to  eradicate  the  malady. 

The  imposition  of  a  tax  upon  this  article  will  not  be  felt  by  the 
wealthy  nor  by  those  in  medium  station,  but  will  be  noted  within 
the  unfortunately  large  domain  occupied  by  poverty.  The  best 
quality  of  antitoxin  is  expensive.  Under  the  decision  already  noted 
the  article  will  come  under  the  medicinal-preparation  clause — page 
15,  section  68,  last  print — the  duty  being  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Think  of  this.  Think  of  the  suffering  infant  struggling  for 
breath  in  the  abode  of  poverty.  Perhaps  the  domestic  finances  are 
such  as  to  make  the  addition  of  25  per  cent,  or  75  cents  material.  Yet 
this  child  must  die  that  an  infant  industry  may  live! 

Such  cases  may  be  rare,  though  poverty  is  not  rare;  but,  how 
ever  unusual,  the  collusiveness  of  the  objection  remains.  A  tariff 
bill  which  will  obstruct  efforts  to  cure  diphtheria,  which  will  en 
courage  speculation  on  life,  which  will  call  upon  the  poor  to  wait, 
notwithstanding  the  death  of  innocents,  until  a  new  industry  has 
been  established,  is  based  upon  barbarian  doctrines.  These  objec 
tions  might  not  appeal  to  the  King  of  Benim,  but  ought  to  be  regarded 
by  American  Senators,  and  even  by  American  trusts,  who  have  here 
tofore  been  contented  to  realize  their  profits  from  sugar,  lead,  iron,  etc. 

GRAIN    BAGS. 

When  this  matter  was  before  the  Senate,  a  majority  voted  to 
put  the  article  on  the  free  list,  where  the  Wilson  bill  located  it. 
This  was  done  after  vigorous  discussion.  But  the  conferees  have 
given  away  the  Senate  as  they  did  in  the  matter  of  matting,  cotton 
bagging,  and  cotton  ties.  The  farmers  of  California  are  interested 
in  procuring  cheap  grain  bags.  All  the  grain  which  we  ship  to 
Liverpool  is  forwarded  in  bags  of  this  character.  Local  manufac 
turers  insist  that  they  are  entitled  to  protection  against  the  cheap 
labor  of  Calcutta.  I  answer  that  the  farmer  derives  so  little  benefit 
from  tariff  taxes  that  I  favor  giving  him  a  chance  as  against  all 
others  when  it  comes  to  grain  bags.  The;  Wilson  bill  cheapened 
grain  bags  to  the  consumer.  In  1891,  when  bags  were  dutiable,  the 
cost  to  the  California  farmer  was  from  7  to  7^'  cents ;  in  1892,  when 
there  was  also  a  duty,  the  cost  was  from  7^4  to  8  cents,  and  in  1893, 
the  duty  being  still  in  effect,  the  cost  was  from  63/2  to  7  cents.  In 
1894,  when  bags  were  free,  the  cost  was  from  4  to  4}^  cents ;  in  1895, 
under  same  conditions,  from  4^  to  5  cents;  and  in  1896,  the  article 
being  still  on  the  free  list,  from  4%  to  4^2  cents.  As  soon  as  this  bill 
was  reported  to  the  House,  the  bag  market  stiffened,  and  no  doubt 
the  price  will  again  be  from  6^2  to  8  cents,  and  the  farmers  of  Cali 
fornia  will  be  taxed  upon  this  single  item  from  $300,000  to  $500,000 
per  annum.  It  is  true  that  a  tariff  has  been  placed  upon  grain.  No 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  141 

one  is  silly  enough  to  be  deceived  as  to  the  effect  of  this  sort 
of  legislation.  Our  prices  are  fixed  abroad.  Grain  can  not  be 
brought  here  profitably.  When  an  importation  is  made,  it  is  for 
seed  purposes,  and  then  the  farmer  pays  a  duty.  In  the  matter  of 
grain  bags  an  opportunity  was  afforded  to  do  something  of  sub 
stantial  benefit  to  the  agriculturist,  but  again  the  manufacturer  had 
his  way  and  the  granger  was  ignored  as  usual. 

Mr.  President,  I  propose  to  offer  several  exceedingly  brief  criti 
cisms  upon  many  paragraphs  of  the  bill.  I  will  not  attempt  to 
elaborate. 

SOME   ADDITIONAL   REFERENCES    TO   THE   OPPRESSIONS   OF   THE   PENDING 

BILL. 

Argols — Put  on  dutiable  list;  destroys  opportunity  to  secure 
foreign  trade. 

Glue — Large  increase  over  present  law. 

White  lead  and  other  lead  products — Rates  about  doubled  over 
present  law. 

Paints — Increase   over   McKinley  bill. 

Potashes — Several  taken  from  free  list. 

Medicines — Increased  above  McKinley  rates. 

Soaps — Rates  doubled. 

Sea  moss — Even  sea  moss  can  not  float  in  upon  our  shores  with 
out  paying  a  customs  duty. 

Chinaware  and  crockery — Increased  from  30  and  35  to  55  and  60 
per  cent. 

Engraved  glassware — Increased  from  40  to  60  per  cent. 

Window  glass — Rates  increased  all  the  way  from  25  per  cent,  to 
100  per  cent.  Especially  is  the  rate  increased  on  common  window 
glass.  Indeed,  it  is  prohibitive. 

Looking-glass  plates  for  cheap  furniture — Largely  increased,  so 
the  plate-glass  trust  can  force  the  purchase  of  plate  glass. 

Spectacles — Increased  enormously  over  the  Wilson  and  McKin 
ley  laws.  For  instance,  a  cheap  pair  of  spectacles  can  not  pay  less 
than  65  per  cent.,  and  from  that  up  to  over  120  per  cent. 

Marble — Think  of  a  duty  of  $1.10  per  cubic  foot  for  gravestones. 
This  is  nearly  double  the  duty  under  the  present  law,  and  there  were 
only  147,000  cubic  feet  brought  in  during  1896. 

Cotton  ties — Free  under  present  law.  Only  $102,327  worth  im 
ported  in  1896,  but  the  price  was  cut  in  half,  from  twenty-six  one- 
thousandths  in  1893  to  thirteen  one-thousandths  in  1896. 

Steel  rails — Seven  dollars  and  eighty-four  cents  per  ton,  when 
contracts  have  been  made  in  the  past  year  to  supply  rails  in  England 
for  a  less  price  than  English  ironmasters  demand. 

Tin  plates — The  duty  on  tin  plates  is  increased,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  the  importations  have  decreased  one-half  since  1893 
under  the  present  law  and  the  domestic  output  has  risen  from  139,- 
000,000  pounds  in  1894  to  307,000,000  pounds  in  1896. 

Sheet  iron  or  steel,  polished,  planished,  or  glanced  (in  common 
phrase,  Russia  sheet  iron) — The  present  rate  of  2  cents  per  pound 
is  maintained,  notwithstanding  there  were  only  $26,000  worth  im 
ported  in  1896  as  against  $49,000  in  1893. 

Card  clothing  (used  in  all  Southern  mills  for  carding  cotton)  — 
The  rate  is  advanced  to  56  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 


142  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Sporting  guns — It  is  difficult  to  estimate,  but  in  many  cases  the 
rates  have  been  more  than  trebled.  The  duty  on  a  sporting  rifle, 
valued  at  above  $10,  is  95  per  cent.,  as  against  30  per  cent,  under  the 
present  law. 

Granite  ware  is  35  per  cent,  under  the  present  law,  and  the 
importations  have  fallen  off  from  $86,000  to  $31,000.  The  rate  is 
increased  to  40  per  cent. 

Nails — There  were  $4000  worth  of  horseshoe  nails  imported  in 
1896  under  a  duty  of  30  per  cent. ;  so,  in  order  to  check  this  enormous 
importation,  the  rate  is  made  a  specific  of  2^4  cents,  equal  to  over 
35  per  cent. 

Cut  nails — The  rate  is  made  six-tenths  of  a  cent  per  pound,  or 
25  per  cent.,  notwithstanding  only  $143  worth  were  imported  in  1896. 

Wire  nails  are  increased  from  25  per  cent,  to  60  per  cent.,  while 
there  was  only  $25,000  imported  in  1896 — not  enough  to  stock  one 
wholesale  dealer. 

Horseshoes — There  were  $102  worth  imported  in  1896,  at  a  duty 
of  25  per  cent.,  and  this  rate  is  maintained  in  a  specific  form. 

Tacks — Twelve  thousand  dollars'  worth  came  in  in  1896  on  a 
basis  of  25  per  cent.  The  increased  duty  is  cunningly  concealed  by 
making  it  i}4  cents  per  1000,  which  will  probably  treble  existing  rates. 

Saws — There  was  a  revenue  of  $20.70  derived  from  mill  saws  in 
1896,  with  a  duty  of  10  cents  per  foot.  This  rate  is  continued.  It 
amounts  to  over  50  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

Other  saws — The  duty  is  increased  from  25  per  cent,  to  30  per 
cent.,  and  on  band  saws  it  is  made  compound;  is  very  likely  100  per 
cent. 

Screws — Very  fine  work  has  been  done  in  this  paragraph,  and 
while  there  is  an  apparent  decrease,  there  is  in  reality  a  large  increase 
of  duty.  The  total  revenues  derived  in  1896  from  all  screws  was  $18 ! 

Dutch  metal  leaf — Present  law,  40  per  cent.  Proposed  law,  6 
cents  per  100  leaves.  This  is  equivalent  to  over  100  per  cent,  on  an 
article  not  one  sheet  of  which  is  made  in  this  country  and  never 
will  be.  It  is  the  raw  material  of  bookbinders,  lithographic  and 
other  printers,  picture-frame  and  furniture  makers,  etc. 

Watches — Enormous  advance  of  duty,  at  a  time  when  Amer 
ican  watches  are  the  world's  standard. 

Zinc — Increase,  when  we  are  large  exporters. 

Lumber — Duty  imposed  for  benefit  of  trusts. 

Toothpicks — Even  these  are  advanced  to  a  50  to  75  per  cent.  duty. 

Kindling  wood  is  taxed  for  the  first  time. 

Fruits — Are  largely  advanced. 

Nuts — Are  largely  advanced. 

Salt — Is  now  free,  but  is  taxed  by  this  bill.  Again  does  the 
breakfast  table  suffer. 

Starch — A  duty  of  nearly  100  per  cent,  is  maintained,  although 
the  importations  are  steadily  declining. 

Paragraph  81.  Vanillin — The  duty  on  this  substance  is  115  per 
cent.  Under  the  House  provision  the  rate  was  fixed  at  70  cents 
per  ounce,  or  100  per  cent.,  the  value  per  ounce  being  about  70  cents. 
The  Senate  reduced  the  rate  to  50  per  cent,  but  subsequently 
advanced  the  duty  to  80  cents  per  ounce,  which  was  adopted  by  the 
conference.  This  substance  is  controlled  by  one  party  in  the  United 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  143 

States,  who  bids  fair  to  soon  become  a  millionaire  at  the  expense  of 
the  people  of  this  country. 

The  provision  in  paragraph  128  for  steel  bands  or  strips  suitable 
for  making  band  saws  is  a  stupendous  job.  Who  can  tell  what  steel 
is  suitable  for  making  band  saws,  the  same  steel  being  suitable  for 
almost  any  other  use?  The  duty  on  this  material  will  equal  75  per 
cent,  and  the  provision  is  conflicting  with  the  two  other  paragraphs 
which  provide  for  sheet  steel  in  strips  and  saw  plates,  respectively. 

Paragraph  151.  Table  cutlery,  90  per  cent  of  which  is  made  in 
this  country  under  the  present  duty  of  35  per  cent,  has  been  advanced 
to  an  equivalent  ad  valorem  duty  of  225  per  cent  on  some  grades. 
It  is  self-evident  that  this  advance  in  duty  will  not  produce  any  con 
siderable  amount  of  revenue  from  the  small  proportion  hitherto 
imported. 

Paragraph  344.  There  is  not  a  city,  village,  or  town  in  the  land 
that  has  not  been  called  on  to  pay  tribute  to  a  theoretical  industry, 
not  yet  and  never  to  be  established,  100  per  cent  duty  on  linen  fabrics 
of  the  description  used  by  the  poor,  who  will  be  required  to  pay  as 
much  or  more  duty  on  the  goods  than  they  are  sold  for  to  the  farmer, 
mechanic,  and  laborer  in  other  countries,  a  tribute  levied  on  them  in 
order  that  the  cheaper  linens  may  be  made  experimentally  in  this 
country.  The  sale  of  such  fabrics  will  be  so  greatly  diminished  that 
the  effect  will  be  felt  by  dealers  all  over  the  land. 

A  reasonable  schedule  was  submitted  by  importers  and  such 
domestic  manufacturers  as  are  in  existence;  but  that  schedule  was 
rejected.  Raw  flax  was  advanced  over  the  House  rates ;  flax  yarns 
were  then  advanced  on  the  strength  of  such  advance,  and  finally  the 
finished  fabrics  were  proportionately  increased,  the  excuse  being  given 
that  such  advance  was  made  necessary  on  account  of  the  higher  duty 
on  yarns.  In  conference  the  duty  on  yarns  was  reduced,  but  no  cor 
responding  reduction  was  made  on  finished  fabrics.  This  is  one  of 
the  rank  injustices  of  this  bill. 

Another  injustice  is  in  placing  a  duty  varying  from  100  to  700 
per  cent  on  light-weight  silk  goods  in  the  piece,  and  providing  for 
articles  made  therefrom  at  60  per  cent.  The  operation  of  this  schedule 
of  duties  will  be  to  throw  out  of  employment  at  least  10,000  poor 
sewing  women  in  New  York  and  the  leading  cities  throughout  the 
country.  I  am  credibly  informed  that  already  several  large  firms  in 
New  York  are  arranging  to  remove  their  establishments  to  Europe 
in  order  to  ship  the  products  thereof  to  this  country  in  a  finished 
condition. 

Straw  matting,  which  is  not  made  in  this  country  (and  which, 
in  order  to  promote  reciprocal  trade  with  China  and  Japan,  who  are 
large  and  growing  purchasers  of  wheat  and  flour  produced  on  the 
Pacific  Coast,  should  be  free),  has  been  taxed  75  per  cent,  a  tax  that 
was  levied  admittedly  and  solely  to  deprive  the  poorer  classes  of  straw 
matting  and  compel  them  to  purchase  in  lieu  thereof  cheap  carpets. 

The  daily  journals  from  time  to  time  have  spoken  of  the  grow 
ing  demand  for  American  bicycles  in  foreign  markets.  The  confer 
ence  committee  have  earned  the  gratitude  of  our  domestic  manufac 
turers  of  these  articles  by  increasing  the  duty  on  bicycle  tubing  beyond 
the  rates  provided  in  the  McKinley  bill  or  the  Senate  amend 
ments  to  the  House  bill,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  said  tubing  has 
to  be  imported.  The  duty  on  window  glass  has  been  advanced  to 


144 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


over  125  per  cent,  and,  indeed,  except  as  to  the  sugar  schedule,  there 
is  not  a  schedule  in  the  whole  act  that  some  one  or  more  paragraphs 
do  not  show  rates  of  duty  exceeding  100  per  cent. 

When  the  silk  schedule  was  under  consideration  it  was  charged 
on  this  side  of  the  Chamber  that  the  complicated  rates,  when  reduced 
to  the  ad  valorem  standard,  ranged  all  the  way  from  50  per  cent  to 
700  per  cent.  This  was  denied  by  the  majority,  and  it  was  affirmed 
by  the  member  of  the  Finance  Committee  having  the  matter  in  charge 
that  the  duty  did  not  exceed  75  per  cent.  Thereupon  we  took  the 
distinguished  Senator  at  his  word  and  an  amendment  was  offered 
providing  that  the  duty  should  not  in  any  case  exceed  75  per  cent. 
This  was  voted  down  by  the  majority,  and  similar  action  was  had  as 
to  two  other  proposed  amendments  limiting  the  tax  to  100  per  cent 
and  200  per  cent,  respectively. 

This  schedule  is  particularly  offensive,  as  already  stated,  to 
China  and  Japan,  with  which  countries  we  are  now  doing  quite  a 
business  in  breadstuffs.  One  of  the  leading  vices  of  this  bill  is  the 
commercial  warfare  which  it  challenges.  Now  that  our  exports  are 
increasing  so  much,  it  would  seem  desirable  to  obtain  an  avenue 
through  which  our  surplus  might  be  profitably  transmitted,  but  the 
tendency  seems  to  be  in  a  contrary  direction.  In  the  silk  as  in  the 
linen  schedule,  and  indeed  throughout  the  whole  bill,  we  find  high 
rates  upon  cheap  articles  and  low  rates  upon  expensive  articles ;  the 
poorer  class  taxed  high,  the  richer  class  taxed  low. 

DISCRIMINATIONS   IN   FAVOR  OF  THE  TRUSTS. 

The  present  bill  is  thronged  with  high  rates  imposed  for  the 
benefit  of  trusts.  I  insert  a  list  which  I  believe  to  be  correct,  so  far 
as  it  goes,  although  it  does  not  by  any  means  cover  the  subject. 

Trusts — Existing  and  proposed  duties. 


Trust. 

Present  duty. 

Proposed  duty. 
(Dingley  bill.) 

Anthracite  coal   (bituminous  com 
petes) 

40  cents 

Ax  

35  per  cent  

45   per   cent 

Barbed  wire 

2\  cents  per  pound.  . 

2^  to   3  cents 

Bolt  and  nut     

ii   cents  per  pound.  . 

ii  cents  per  pound 

Borax 

2  cents  per  pound 

Broom 

20  per  cent                *  . 

40  per  cent 

Carbon  candle   

20  per  cent  

20  per  cent 

Cartridge 

do 

Do 

Casket                   

25  per  cent       

•jc  ner  cent 

Castor  oil 

35  cents  per  gallon 

Celluloid 

45  per  cent 

6^   cents   and   25   per 

Cigarette       

$4  per  pound  and  25 

cent. 
$4  50  per   pound  and 

per  cent. 
2  cents  per  pound... 

25  per  cent. 
2  cents  per  pound 

Copper  ingot                      

Free                          .    . 

Free 

Copper    sheet       

....do    

Do 

Cordage   

Binding  free;   10  per 

i  cent  and  2  cents  per 

Cotton-seed  oil                

cent  and  i  cent  per 
pound. 
Free  

pound. 
4  cents  per  gallon 

Cotton  thread       

5$   cents   per  dozen.  . 

6  cents  per  dozen 

SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


145 


Trusts — Existing   and  proposed  duties. — Continued. 


Trust. 

Present  Duty. 

Proposed  Duty. 
(Dingley  Bill.) 

Electric    supply                      

35     per    cent 

45  per  cent 

Flint    glass              

40  per   cent 

60  per  cent. 

Fork  and  hoe                           .    .  .  • 

35     per    cent 

45   Per   cent 

Fruit  jar            

40   per   cent 

Do. 

Harrow        

Free   

20  per  cent. 

Hinge                 

ii   cents  per  pound   . 

ii  cents  per  pound 

Indurated    fiber 

30   per   cent 

35    per   cent 

Lead                          .             .  .       . 

i    cent  per  pound 

^i  cents  per  pound 

Leather  board  

20  per  cent    

35  per  cent 

Lime                                          • 

5     cents  per     100 

5        cents       per    100 

Linseed   oil 

pounds. 
20  cents  per  gallon 

pounds. 
20  cents  per  gallon 

Lithograph      

13  to  28  per  cent 

26  to  41  per  cent 

Locomotive    tire  

ii   cents  per  pound.  . 

i£    cents    per   pound 

Marble 

85     cents     per     cubic 

$i  ID  per  cubic  foot 

Match 

foot. 
20   per   cent 

8  cents  per  gross 

Morocco    leather         .... 

do     

20   per    cent. 

Oilcloth    

25.  and  40  per  cent.  . 

35  to  50  per  cent. 

Paper    bag 

20   per   cent      

35  per  cent 

Pitcfc      

Free     

Free. 

Plate    glass  

5     to     35     cents     per 

8     to     35     cents     per 

Pocket  cutlery  

square  foot. 
25  to  75  per  cent.  .  .  . 

square  foot. 
To  160  per  cent. 

Powder 

5    to   8   cents  

4  to  6  cents. 

Pulp             .             

10  per   cent    

$1.50  to  $5  per  ton. 

Rubber   gossamer  

4^  to  50  per  cent.  .  .  . 

50   cents   and   55   per 

Rubber,  general  

25   per   cent    

cent. 
30  per  cent. 

Safe 

35  per  cent     

45   per   cent. 

Salt      ...             .     .           ... 

Free   

8  and  12  cents  per  100 

Sanitary   ware 

30   per   cent    

pounds. 
55  per  cent. 

Sandpaper     

20   per   cent    

35  per  cent. 

Saw  

12  to  50  per  cent.  .  .  . 

12    to     50    per  cent; 

Schoolbook 

25   per   cent 

band,    10  cents  and 
20  per   cent. 
25   per   cent. 

School  furniture       

do     

35   per   cent. 

Sewer  pipe  

20   per   cent    

25  per  cent. 

Shot  and  lead 

ii  cents  per  pound 

2i  cents  per  pound. 

Skewer     

25   per   cent    

35   per  cent. 

Smelters 

35   per   cent 

45   per   cent. 

Snath                   

25  per  cent  

35    per   cent. 

Soap    . 

10  to  35  per  cent.  .  .  . 

20  to  50  per  cent. 

Soda-water    machinery           .      ... 

35     per    cent    

45    per   cent. 

Spool    bobbin    and  shuttle 

25    per   cent 

35  per  cent. 

Starch 

i^  cents  per  pound.  . 

il    cents    per    pound. 

Steel    

35     per    cent    

45   per   cent. 

Steel  rail 

$7  84   per   ton 

$7.84  per  ton. 

Stove   board         ...           

35     per    cent    

45  per  cent. 

Strawboard 

25    per    cent 

30  per  cent. 

Sugar                        

40  per  cent.  -\-  J  cent 

1.95  cents  per  pound. 

Teasel     

15   per   cent    

30  per   cent. 

Tin  plate              

i^   cents           

i  4-10  cents. 

Tombstone                                   .  . 

45   per   cent    

50  per  cent. 

Trunk               

30  per   cent    

35  per  cent. 

Tube 

2C   per   cent               .  • 

2  cents  per  pound. 

Type      .  .           .           

15   per   cent    

25   per   cent. 

Umbrella    

45  per  cent  

50  per  cent. 

146 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE,. 


Trusts — Existing  and  proposed  duties. — Continued. 


Trust. 

Present  duty. 

Proposed  duty. 
(Dingley  bill.) 

Vapor  stove  

do       

o  8  cent  per  pound 

Wall  paper  

20  per   cent 

25   per  cent 

Watch    

25   per   cent 

Wheel 

do 

per   cent. 
35  per  cent 

Whip    

30   per   cent 

Do 

\Vindow   glass 

Wire    

ii     cents     to     4.0  per 

i^   to  2  cents 

cent     

Wood  screw 

3  to  10  cents 

Wrapping   paper  

20   per    cent 

25  per  cent 

Yellow    pine 

$2  npr  TVT  fppf 

Petroleum     

do 

Free 

2  cents  per  pound 

Lard    

i  cent  per  pound-  • 

Do 

School   slate  

20   per   cent 

20  per  cent 

Gas    

do 

do 

Whisky  

$i  80   per   gallon 

$2  25   per  gallon 

Nails     

22^   to  25  per  cent 

•j  -jo   j   cent 

Wrought    pipe  

2  cents 

Stoves     

o  088   cent  per  pound 

o  8  cent  per  pound 

Coke    

20  per   cent 

Jute    bagging  

Free                      

f  cent  per  pound  and 

Lumber    

do 

15  per  cent. 
$i  per  M  feet 

Shingles 

do 

30  cents  per  M 

Beef          

2  cents  per  pound 

Felt    ....>  

25  to  50  per  cent 

To   40   cents   and    55 

Lead  pencils  • 

SO   per   cent 

per  cent. 
45  cents  per  gross  and 

Clothes  wringers  

35   per   cent    

25   per   cent. 
45  per  cent. 

Carpets     

30  to  40  per  cent 

To  6o£  cents  and  40 

Dental  tools  

35   per  cent         

per   cent. 
45  per  cent. 

Milk    

Free    

2  cents  per  gallon. 

Patent   leather 

20  per   cent      

20    cents    per    pound 

Flour    

do          

and  10  per  cent. 
25   per   cent. 

Bread      

do 

20  per   cent 

Had  there  been  any  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  majority  to 
curtail  the  power  of  the  trusts,  a  provision  to  that  effect  might  have 
been  placed  in  this  bill.  While  the  subject  is  complicated  by  reason 
of  the  difficulties  pertaining  to  Federal  jurisdiction,  nevertheless  the 
adoption  of  an  amendment  such  as  that  proposed  by  the  Senator  from 
Texas  [Mr.  CHILTON]  would  have  been  most  timely,  and  I  think  that 
the  trusts  would  have  found  it  difficult  to  evade  its  plain  terms.  The 
Senator  from  Nebraska  [Mr.  THURSTON]  has  introduced  a  bill  leveled 
at  the  trusts.  It  is  understood  that  he  made  an  effort  to  obtain  the 
caucus  indorsement.  In  this  he  was  not  successful.  How  can  the 
Republican  party,  without  violating  its  promises  and  without  ingrati 
tude  to  its  friends,  the  combines  of  the  country,  father  any  legislation 
which  will  make  those  institutions  uncomfortable? 

A  striking  instance  of  the  dominating  influence  of  the  trusts  here 
is  found  in  the  action  of  the  conference  committee  in  eliminating  the 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


147 


Senate  amendment  providing  for  a  duty  on  incandescent  lamps 
amounting  to  35  per  cent  ad  valorem.  The  Senator  from  Iowa,  upon 
being  interrogated  with  reference  to  this  subject,  conceded  that  in  the 
absence  of  this  amendment  these  lamps  will  pay  a  duty  of  45  per  cent 
ad  valorem.  Heretofore  the  duty  has  been  but  35  per  cent,  and  with 
out  any  justification  whatever  the  Senate  conferees  permitted  a  "  com 
bine  "  to  regulate  the  tax.  When  this  subject  was  formerly  consid 
ered,  on  the  3d  of  July,  1897,  I  presented  documents  which  demon 
strated  not  only  that  this  trust  existed,  but  that  it  was  explicitly  con 
ceded  that  the  object  of  the  institution  was  to  raise  rates,  and  a  very 
large  increase  in  prices  has  been  made  in  consequence  of  the  power 
of  the  combination.  Yet  this  body,  dominated  by  the  Republican 
party,  deliberately  legislates  money  into  the  pockets  of  this  unscrupu 
lous  and  extortionate  alliance.  The  proof  introduced  by  me  can  be 
found  on  the  above  date,  page  2629,  CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD.  The 
present  rate  (35  per  cent)  is  almost  prohibitive,  but  the  trust,  finding 
itself  able  to  do  so,  has  determined,  with  the  aid  of  Congress,  to  abso 
lutely  shut  out  competition. 

Not  only  do  the  trusts  realize  enormously  by  reason  of  increased 
rates,  but  in  many  instances  they  will  reap  a  rich  harvest  because  of 
the  large  stocks  which  they  have  accumulated.  .  It  stands  admitted 
on  this  floor  that  there  is  a  year's  supply  of  wool  on  hand  on  which 
no  duty  has  been  paid,  and  still  the  manufacturer  is  allowed  a  com 
pensating  duty  on  this  identical  article,  on  which  he  has  not  paid 
and  never  will  pay  any  duty  whatever.  When  we  proposed  to  sus 
pend  the  compensating  duty  for  twelve  months,  the  Republican  Sena 
tors  voted  us  down.  Sugar  is  another  example. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  proposed  an  excise  tax  on  sugar 
now  in  the  United  States.  The  majority  declined  to  act  on  the 
advice.  There  is  an  immense  amount  on  hand.  The  importations 
for  1895,  1896,  and  1897,  ending  with  and  including  June  of  the 
latter  year,  are  to  be  found  in  No.  n,  series  1896-97,  Monthly  Sum 
mary  of  Finance  and  Commerce  of  the  United  States,  May,  1897, 
page  1905,  under  heading  "  Totals."  The  statistician,  Mr.  Ford, 
informs  me  that  the  returns  above  shown  for  June  contain  about  96 
per  cent  of  the  entire  importation  for  that  month.  On  every  pound 
of  this  sugar  now  on  hand  the  trust  will  net  at  least  1.188  cents  per 
pound  in  excess  of  the  price  heretofore  prevailing. 

The  table  is  as  follows : 


Pounds. 

Value. 

Pounds. 

Value. 

189  201  829     

$3,542,059 

388,381,830  

$  9,991,876 

235  488  605 

4,609  702 

544,106,452  

13,817,477 

396  020  254 

4  438,728 

472,637,376  

11,863,068 

377  937  280 

6,976,220 

320,175,291  

7,364,079 

538  664  910 

10,484,230 

292,507,454  

6,341,541 

388  808  648 

7  760  751 

387,747896  

8,385,641 

364  712  668      

7,211,960 

308,694,399  

6,524,904 

256  778  388 

4  887,103 

172,312018  

3,625,180 

204  519  984 

4,000,286 

184,122,514  

3,709,432 

285  563  135 

5,711,030 

208,480,753  

3,997,937 

159  658  142 

3,406,344 

286,605,450  

5,633,513 

182  470  911 

3  739  460 

485525990  

9,413,910 

263  995  129 

5  897  178 

773  527  477  

15,125,409 

337  992  660 

7  885,441 

790,653,995  

15,054,777 

435,501,882  

10,807,738 

696,174,103  

13,560,125 

148  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

This  table  shows  monthly  importations  commencing  January, 
1895,  and  ending  June  30,  1897. 

Mr.  President,  I  must  say  a  word  in  conclusion  regarding 

THE:  SELFISHNESS  OF  THE  PENDING  MEASURE. 

This  is  obviously  a  manufacturers'  bill.  When  the  tax  was 
imposed  upon  wool  a  compensating  duty  with  concealed  advantages 
was  added  to  the  already  high  rate  fixed  for  the  manufacturer's  wel 
fare.  It  has  been  amply  shown  throughout  this  debate  that  our 
manufacturers  defy  competition.  Some!  of  the  extraordinary  advances 
in  exports  can  be  studied  with  advantage  in  this  regard.  Sufficient 
is  it  to-day  that  the  burdens  thus  imposed  are  wholly  unnecessary 
and  result  from  the  avariciousness  of  those  who  have  most  largely 
gained  by  reason  of  protective  enactments.  Mr.  Sherman  in  his 
Recollections  says  that  — 

The  New  England  States  have  twelve  able  and  experienced  Senators,  with 
a  population,  according  to  the  census  of  1890,  of  4,700,745,  or  one  Senator  for 
less  than  400,000  inhabitants.  *  *  *  This  inequality  of  representation  can 
not  be  avoided.  It  was  especially  manifest  in  framing  the  tariff  of  1883,  when 
New  England  carried  a  measure  that  was  condemned  by  public  opinion  from 
the  date  of  its  passage/ 

In  discussing  the  McKinley  bill  in  the  same  work,  Mr.  Sherman 
remarks : 

The  McKinley  tariff  bill  was  not  improved  in  the  Senate.  The  compact 
and  influential  delegation  from  New  England  made  its  influence  felt  in  support 
of  industries  pursued  in  that  section,  while  the  delegations  from  other  sections 
were  divided  on  party  lines. 

This  was  the  language  of  a  Republican  leader.  It  is  in  the 
nature  of  a  confession. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  obtain  the  views  of  the  distinguished 
Secretary  of  State  upon  the  Dingley  bill  —  the  worst  of  its  kind. 
But  I  will  not  prolong  this  discussion.  The  arguments  made  from 
time  to  time  in  the  Senate  while  the  bill  has  been  before  us  are  suffi 
cient  to  fully  expose  its  nefariousness.  I  know  that  but  few  Repub 
lican  Senators  really  approve  of  the  bill  throughout.  They  feel  that 
the  business  of  the  country  will  suffer  because  of  its  exactions  and 
with  reason  dread  the  day  of  reckoning.  Unquestionably  demands 
were  often  difficult  to  avoid,  and  I  am  persuaded  that  each  Republican 
member  of  the  Finance  Committee,  when  he  recalls  the  importunate 
army  by  which  he  has  been  pursued,  is  disposed  to  say,  "  I  will  rejoice 
when  I  am  relieved  of  '  these  yelling  monsters  that  with  ceaseless  cries 
surround  me/  " 

It  is  no  doubt  disappointing  to  those  who  are  responsible  for 
this  legislation  that  a  milder  measure,  more  conservative  schedules 
have  not  been  produced.  But  however  much  as  an  individual  I  may 
sympathize  with  my  friends  in  their  trouble,  I  know  that  the  country 
will  not  excuse  them.  When  they  declare  that  they  could  do  no 
better,  that  various  people  and  certain  powers  could  not  be  ignored, 
they  will  be  told  that  no  such  plea  can  be  accepted.  To  admit  that 
they  were  unable  to  resist  is  to  concede  unfitness. 

So  spake  the  fiend,  and  with  necessity, 
The  tyrant's  plea,  excused  his  devilish  deeds. 


SILVER  COINAGE  AND  COIN  REDEMPTION 


SPEECH  DELIVERED 
IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

Friday,  January  31,  1896. 
(Legislative  day,  Thursday,  January  30). 

The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  bill  (H.  R.  2904)  to  maintain  and 
protect  the  coin  redemption  fund,  and  to  authorize  the  issue  of  certificates  of 
indebtedness  to  meet  temporary  deficiencies  of  revenue — 

Mr.  WHITE  said: 

Mr.  PRESIDENT:  This  discussion  has  elicited  so  many  of  the 
arguments  upon  which  the  majority  of  the  Committee  on  Finance 
have  deemed  controlling  that  I  do  not  regard  it  essential  to  delay 
proceedings  for  the  purpose  of  making  any  extended  dissertation. 
As  far  as  the  silver  question  is  concerned,  I  have  seen  no  reason  to 
alter  the  opinions  which  I  expressed  in  an  address  delivered  in  this 
Chamber  on  September  21,  1893.  The  Senator  from  Colorado  [Mr. 
TELLER]  recently  called  the  attention  of  the  country  to  the  circum 
stance  that  gold  monometallists,  who  are  ably  represented  by  the 
minority  of  the  Committee  on  Finance,  have  presented  nothing;  that 
they  are  here  without  a  policy  and  without  a  suggestion  worthy  of 
consideration  as  a  financial  plan.  They  declare  that  all  national 
obligations  must  be  paid  in  gold ;  that  although  our  bonds,  notes,  etc., 
are  clearly  otherwise  worded  that  still,  in  deference  to  the  sensibilities 
of  the  financial  world,  we  must  yield  our  convictions  and  forego  our 
contractual  rights.  Perhaps  some  of  us  might  be  willing  to  give  all 
that  we  now  possess  in  testimony  of  our  good  faith,  but  even  then  we 
would  be  constrained  to  entertain  gloomy  forebodings  as  to  the  future. 

Everyone  concedes  that  the  present  financial  system  is  bad. 
Everyone  knows  that  the  sale  of  bonds  in  times  of  peace  indicates 
governmental  inefficiency.  Were  our  country  void  of  resources,  were 
our  people  indolent  and  brainless,  our  present  embarrassment  might 
be  accounted  for.  No  one  will  claim  that  silver  advocates  have  had 
their  way.  Not  only  has  the  legislative  department  discredited  silver, 
but  the  executive  has  practically  announced  that  while  gold  is  consti 
tutional  money  silver,  though  similarly  mentioned  in  that  instrument, 
is  not  to  be  so  considered.  And  after  thus  contributing  every  effort 
to  convince  the  world  that  silver  can  not  be  used  in  common  with 
gold  we  hear  complaint  that  there  is  a  difference  in  the  actual  value 
of  the  two  metals,  a  difference  that  does  not  depend  upon  production 
and  what  has  no  apparent  or  actual  relationship  to  the  amount  of 
metal  in  circulation  or  existence  the  world  over. 

The  President  proposes  to  retire  the  greenbacks  and  'to  trust  the 
financial  affairs  of  the  Government  to  the  national  banks.  If  I  read 
the  history  of  my  party  correctly,  its  greatest  men,  its  ablest  teachers, 
have  always  declared  a  public  debt  to  be  a  curse,  and  have  advised 
the  payment  of  governmental  obligations  at  the  earliest  practicable 

149 


150  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

moment.  The  historical  reference  made  by  the  Senator  from  Texas 
[Mr.  MILLS]  some  days  since  I  shall  annex  to  my  remarks  in  demon 
stration  of  this  proposition.  Whenever  the  financial  affairs  of  this 
country  are  placed  absolutely  in  the  keeping  of  national  banks  or  of 
any  private  banking  system,  free  government  will  cease,  and  wealth 
resulting  from  our  deliberate  misfeasance  will  rule  imperilously  and 
indisputably.  Are  we  prepared  to  disregard  the  advice  of  our  revered 
and  patriotic  statesmen?  The  distinguished  Senator  from  Ohio 
[Mr.  SHERMAN],  if  I  understand  him,  does  not  agree  that  greenbacks 
should  be  destroyed.  He  would  store  them  in  the  Treasury.  I 
agree  with  the  Senator  from  Colorado  [Mr.  TELLER]  that  as  between 
the  two  propositions  that  of  the  Administration  is  the  more  logical, 
and  I  notice  that  the  advocates  of  the  gold  standard  throughout  the 
United  States  quite  generally  accept  Mr.  Cleveland's  view. 

In  his  address  delivered  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Board  of 
Trade  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  Mr.  William  T.  Baker,  the  president 
of  the  board,  and  who  referred  to  the  free-coinage  advocates  as  per 
sons  afflicted  with  free-silver  lunacy,  said : 

In  order  to  maintain  the  credit  of  the  Government  by  keeping  the  parity 
between  gold  and  silver  as  required  by  law,  the  Treasury  must  redeem  green 
backs  and  Sherman  notes  in  gold,  and  this  redemption  is  accompanied  by  the 
absurd  requirement  that  such  notes  must  be  paid  out  again  and  kept  in  circula 
tion,  to  be  again  and  again  redeemed  in  gold.  This  imbecile  legislative  contri 
vance  has  placed  us  at  the  mercy  of  foreign  enemies  or  alien  speculators  in  bul 
lion,  and  recent  events  have  shown  us  that  such  enemies  and  speculators  know 
their  advantage  and  are  not  slow  to  profit  by  our  weakness.  There  is  but  one 
remedy  for  this  deplorable  condition  of  affairs.  Provision  must  be  made  for 
the  permanent  retirement  of  the  five  hundred  millions  of  greenbacks  and  Sher 
man  notes.  Long-time  bonds,  bearing  a  low  rate  of  interest  and  payable  in  gold, 
should  be  authorized  for  this  purpose,  and  if  such  bonds  were  permitted  to  be 
used  by  national  banks  as  security  for  circulation  redeemable  in  gold,  they  would 
be  quickly  absorbed,  and  the  transition  would  be  easily  and  safely  made.  All  the 
hoarded  gold  in  the  country  would  immediately  come  back  into  circulation,  and 
this  country  would  enter  upon  an  era  of  unexampled  prosperity.  There  is  no 
politics  in  this  proposition.  There  is  only  partisanship,  ignorance,  and  greed 
opposed  to  it. 

The  gentleman  whose  comments  I  have  read  uses  this  expression : 
"  There  is  only  partisanship,  ignorance,  and  greed  opposed  to  it  " — 
the  proposition  which  he  advocates.  So-called  conservative  expres 
sions  of  this  kind  with  reference  to  those  who  in  good  faith  favor 
the  free  coinage  of  silver  are  heard  wherever  gold  monometallists 
promulgate  their  dogmas.  We  daily  peruse  in  the  great  newspapers 
of  the  gold  center  of  the  United  States  extravagant  denunciation  of 
this  type.  Indeed,  Senators  who  faithfully  advocate  the  principles 
which  for  years  they  have  openly  avowed  and  who  honestly  act  in 
redemption  of  their  promises  are  derided  and  accused  of  misrepre 
senting  the  very  constituents  who  elected  them  because  of  the  opin 
ions  which  they  here  reiterate.  Because  of  certain  reflections  of  this 
nature,  I  wish  to  make  a  few  citations  from  platforms  adopted  by 
the  Democracy  of  California. 

The  money  of  the  Constitution,  gold  and  silver,  the  only  legal  tender.— 
Democratic  State  Platform.  1876. 

That  this  convention  recommends  the  passage  of  an  act  of  Congress  pro 
viding  for  the  free  coinage  of  both  gold  and  silver,  by  the  terms  of  which  act 
all  gold  and  silver  bullion  offered  at  the  several  mints  of  the  United  States  shall 
be  received  in  exchange  for  money,  or  gold  or  silver  certificates  at  the  rate  now 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  151 

fixed  by  law  for  standard  dollars  of  gold  or  silver,  which  certificates  shall  be  re 
ceivable  for  all  public  purposes  and  interchangeable  for  gold  or  silver,  as  the 
case  may  be. — Democratic  State  Platform,  1886. 

That  this  convention  recommends  the  passage  of  an  act  of  Congress  provid 
ing  for  the  free  coinage  of  both  gold  and  silver,  by  the  terms  of  which  act  all 
gold  and  silver  bullion  offered  at  the  several  mints  of  the  United  States  shall 
be  received  in  exchange  for  money,  or  gold  or  silver  certificates  at  the  rate 
now  fixed  by  law  for  standard  dollars  of  gold  or  silver,  which  certificates  shall 
be  receivable  for  public  purposes  and  interchangeable  for  gold  and  silver,  as  the 
case  may  be. — Democratic  State  Platform,  1888. 

A  depleted  Treasury,  the  imposition  of  unequal  and  oppressive  taxes,  the 
effort  to  enact  coercive  legislation,  the  arbitrary  disregard  by  the  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  all  parliamentary  rules,  and  the  shameless  servility 
displayed  by  the  majority  in  the  House  of  Representatives  in  yielding  ready 
obedience  to  his  tyrannical  mandates,  their  refusal  to  join  the  Democracy  in  its 
efforts  to  procure  the  passage  of  a  measure  permitting  the  free  coinage  of  silver. 
— Democratic  State  Platform,  1890. 

Over  one  of  these  conventions  I  had  the  honor  to  preside,  and  in 
another  instance  I  was  the  chairman  of  the  committee  on  resolutions. 
In  every  instance  I  voted  for  the  platforms  from  which  these  citations 
are  made. 

I  take  it  to  be  a  fact  that  the  only  proposition  offered  for  the 
rehabilitation  of  our  financial  system  by  those  who  are  opposed  to  the 
views  held  by  the  majority  of  the  Finance  Committee  is  that  which 
involves  either  the  retiring  or  hoarding  of  greenbacks,  the  withdrawal 
from  circulation  and  the  substitution  of  the  national  bank  for  the  Gov 
ernment  in  the  regulation  and  control  of  our  financial  system.  I  will 
not  elaborate  upon  the  consequences  of  this  condition.  The  obviously 
fatal  tendency  of  such  a  scheme  has  been  most  fully  presented  here. 
In  the  first  place  we  would  suffer  from  a  most  ruinous  contraction. 
Notwithstanding  all  the  inducements  that  have  been  heretofore  offered 
to  the  national  banks,  they  have  but  a  comparatively  small  amount  of 
circulation,  and  many  of  them  have  manifested  a  disposition  to  retire 
much  of  this.  It  is  certain  that  they  would  never,  if  they  procured 
the  contemplated  additional  privilege,  supply  money  equal  in  amount 
to  that  which  our  friends  proposed  to  destroy  or  withdraw;  and  the 
utter  futility  of  maintaining  a  gold  basis  in  this  country  would  give 
rise  to  disaster  and  bring  about  the  further  centralization  of  gold  and 
all  the  direful  consequences  of  a  congested  and  inadequate  currency. 

Speaking  from  Democratic  ground,  I  may  be  permitted  to  say 
that  I  do  not  understand  how  any  follower  of  Jefferson  or  Jackson 
can  stand  the  new  departure  which  the  Administration  insists  we  shall 
adopt.  Platform  after  platform  of  our  party,  year  in  and  year  out, 
has  been  so  drawn  as  to  call  the  attention  of  the  world  to  the  criminal 
subserviency  of  the  Republican  organization  to  the  national  banking 
system,  and  yet  now  we  are  to  meekly  follow  not  only  the  financial 
leaders  of  that  organization,  but  are  to  submit  ourselves  absolutely 
to  the  dictation  of  those  who  have  thus  been  selected  to  determine  the 
volume  of  our  currency  and  whether  we  shall  have  an  adequate  money 
supply.  I  know  of  no  tyranny  more  odious  than  that  which  has  thus 
been  partially  established  and  which  it  is  proposed  to  deliberately 
fasten  upon  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

I  have  before  me  a  work  called  the  Democratic  Campaign  Book. 
It  is  a  document  which  was  issued  by  the  Congressional  Committee 
of  the  Democratic  party  in  1890,  and  contains  the  arguments  upon 
which  it  was  hoped  the  party  might  gain  an  important  contest. 


152  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

REPUBLICAN  FAVORITISM  FOR  NATIONAL  BANKS — AN  ACT  TO  CREATE  AND  DONATE 
$I5,OOO,OOO  TO  THESE  PETS — INCREASING  CIRCULATION  TO  PAR  VALUE  OF  BONDS 
DEPOSITED. 

Mr.  Dorsey,  Republican  (Nebraska),  introduced  in  this  Congress  the  fol 
lowing  bill : 

"  A  substitute  for  bill  No.  537  to  provide  for  the  issue  of  circulating  notes  to 
national  banking  associations. 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  upon  any  deposit  already  or 
hereafter  made  by  any  United  States  bonds  bearing  interest  in  the  manner 
required  by  law,  any  national  banking  association  making  the  same  shall  be  entitled 
to  receive  from  the  Comptroller  of  the  Currency  circulating  notes  of  different 
denominations  in  blank,  registered  and  countersigned  as  provided  by  law,  not 
exceeding  in  the  whole  amount  the  par  value  of  the  bonds  deposited :  Provided, 
That  at  no  time  shall  the  total  amount  of  such  notes  issued  to  any  such  associa 
tion  exceed  the  amount  at  such  time  actually  paid  in  of  its  capital  stock.  And 
that  all  laws  and  parts  of  laws  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  this  act  be, 
and  the  same  are  hereby,  repealed." 

January  29  an  attempt  was  made  to  push  the  bill  through  without  discus 
sion.  Mr.  Bland  objected  to  the  consideration  of  the  bill,  and  the  ayes  and  noes 
were  taken,  which  resulted  in  the  bill  being  then  taken  up  for  one  hour's  discus 
sion.  The  vote  on  the  question  of  consideration  stood  thus : 

Yeas — Democrats,  18;  Republicans,  125. 

Nays — Democrats,  103;  Republicans,  9. 

Under  the  present  law  national  banks  are  allowed  to  issue  circulation  up  to 
90  per  cent,  of  the  par  value  of  Government  bonds  held  by  them.  This  bill  is  to 
allow  them  to  increase  their  circulation  to  the  full  par  value  of  the  bonds. 

Under  existing  law  these  banks  are  the  owners  of  $145,000,000  of  bonds,  and 
their  circulation,  based  on  these  bonds,  is  $128,000,000.  Bonds  are  far  above 
par,  due  in  a  large  measure  to  the  demand  upon  the  part  of  banks  for  these 
securities  as  a  basis  of  circulation,  and  the  immediate  and  intended  effect  of  this 
bill  is  to  increase  the  value  of  the  assets  of  the  banks. 

Upon  the  passage  of  the  bill  the  banks  could,  without  the  purchase  of 
another  bond,  issue  $15,000,000  more  of  notes.  That  is  to  say,  the  bill  is  a  Repub 
lican  proposition  to  make  the  banks  a  present  of  $15,000,000  to  be  loaned  out  to 
borrowers  at  any  rate  of  interest  that  necessity  may  compel  the  borrowers  to  pay. 

The  further  and  necessary  effect  is,  of  course,  to  increase  to  the  extent  of 
the  increase  of  circulation  the  power  of  the  banks  to  expand  and  contract  the 
currency. 

This  is  another  instance  of  Republican  friendship  toward  the  banks,  and  a 
corresponding  act  of  unfriendliness  toward  silver. 

This  bill  has  not  been  finally  voted  upon  in  the  House,  but  it  and  several 
others  containing  like  propositions  are  still  pending  there,  while  in  the  Senate 
JOHN  SHERMAN  has  another  on  the  Calendar  awaiting  the  coming1  of  the  second 
session  of  this  Congress. 

The  following  Republican  expressions  made  during  the  hour's  debate  on  this 
bill  are  sufficiently  indicative  of  the  purpose  of  the  Republican  party  to  enable 
the  people  to  judge  as  to  the  probable  result  should  that  party  be  retained  in 
power. 

Mr.  Dorsey  of  Nebraska :  Now,  if  the  House  passes  this  bill  It  will  be  an 
encouragement  for  the  national  banks  to  continue  to  hold  the  bonds  that  they 
are  holding  today  at  a  positive  loss  and  it  will  give  them  cause  to  hope  that  this 
Congress  will  pass  such  a  measure  as  will  perpetuate  the  national  banking  sys 
tem  of  the  country.  I  know  it  was  popular  some  years  ago,  especially  in  the 
West,  to  cry  out  against  national  banks,  but  I  am  happy  to  say  that  day  has 
passed. 

Mr.  Conger  of  Iowa,  chairman  of  Coinage,  Weights  and  Measures  :  Why, 
gentlemen,  I  am  in  favor  of  any  measure  that  will  do  any  public  good  in  this 
country,  even  if  it  should  make  a  few  men  rich. 

Suppose  the  national  banks  do  receive  some  benefit  from  this  proposition. 
The  national  banking  system,  in  my  judgment  and  in  that  of  the  civilized  people 
of  this  world,  is  the  best  that  history  has  ever  known.  This  will  tend  in  some 
measure  to  perpetuate  that  system.  But,  gentlemen,  I  know  you  do  not  like  the 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  153 

national  banking  system;  you  never  did  like  it;  I  do  not  suppose  you 
ever  will.  It  was  a  Republican  measure ;  and  it  is  the  highest  compliment  that 
has  ever  been  made  to  the  history  of  the  Republican  government  of  this  country. 

So  far  the  Democrats  have,  with  the  assistance  of  a  very  few  Republicans, 
been  able  to  prevent  the  passage  of  any  of  these  bills,  but  the  Republican  who 
was  most  in  sympathy  with  them  has  not  been  renominated,  and  should  they 
be  in  the  minority  in  the  coming  election  the  bill  will  certainly  pass. 

A  proposition  of  like  nature  was  made  in  the  Fiftieth  Congress,  but  the 
Democratic  majority  ignored  it  entirely,  and  it  was  never  even  considered. 

Those  upon  whom  Democratic  orators  thus  instructed  impressed 
these  views  are  not  disposed  to  abandon  their  convictions,  no  matter 
from  whom  the  solicitation  or  mandate  may  come. 

Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  say  at  this  point  that  in  my  judgment 
no  compromise  is  possible.  The  Sherman  and  Bland-Allison  acts 
were  failures.  These  were  compromises.  A  bill  which  I  might 
almost  call  immaterial  regarding  the  coinage  of  the  seigniorage  was 
vetoed,  thus  indicating  that  the  Executive  did  not  believe  that  any 
concession  whatever  should  be  made,  and  after  all,  with  the  views 
which  that  distinguished  officer  entertains,  his  veto  of  that  bill 
should  have  been  anticipated.  His  sentiments  have  been  expressed 
uniformly.  He  has  not  changed.  He  has  been  consistent.  This  is 
more  than  can  be  said  of  many  who  have  followed  in  the  pathway 
which  he  has,  as  far  as  the  Democracy  is  concerned,  pioneered. 

Now  and  then  some  one  comes  upon  the  scene  who  thinks  he 
has  a  programme  which  will  solve  all  difficulties.  An  idea  of  this 
kind  is  embodied  in  a  resolution  offered  by  the  Senator  from  Kansas 
[Mr.  BAKER]  concerning  the  coinage  of  the  American  product. 

Upon  principle  no  free-coinage  man  can  vote  for  such  a  proposi 
tion,  because  the  moment  that  a  discrimination  of  any  kind  or  char 
acter  is  made  against  silver,  the  moment  its  use  is  limited  or  a  pecu 
liar  burden  imposed  upon  it,  whenever  an  avenue  of  usefulness  is 
opened  to  one  metal. not  permitted  to  the  other,  that  moment  bimetal 
lism  as  we  understand  it  ceases  and  the  true  theory  is  abandoned. 

But  there  is  another  reason  independent  of  this  which  absolutely 
interdicts  the  success  of  the  idea  advanced  in  the  amendment  of  the 
Senator  from  Kansas  [Mr.  BAKER].  This  I  will  illustrate  by  the 
following  quotation  from  the  Coinage  Laws  of  the  United  States, 
1792-1894.  The  article  has  reference  to  the  significant  experience 
of  Venezuela: 

PROHIBITION    OF    THE    IMPORTATION    OF    SILVER   COIN. 

The  Venezuelan  Government  issued  the  following  decree  on  the  I4th  of 
August,  1893: 

1.  From  and  after  this   date    the    importation    of  Venezuelan  silver  coin 
through  the   customs   stations   of   the   Republic   is   prohibited,   except   when  the 
same  is  imported  by  the  Government.     The  import  of  all  foreign  silver  coin  is 
also  prohibited  by  law. 

2.  The  collectors  of  customs  in  seaport  towns  shall  consider  all  silver  coins, 
inclusive  of  Venezuelan  silver  coins,  which  it  is  sought  to  import  into  the  coun 
try  as  articles  whose  importation  is  prohibited,  and  persons  found  guilty  of  such 
attempted  importation  shall  be  punished  by  the  confiscation  of  the  coin  and  a 
fine  equal  to  50  per  cent,  of  its  value. 

The  reasons  for  the  issuance  of  this  decree  are  explained  by  Mr.  E.  A.  Plu- 
macher,  our  consul  at  Maracaibo,  in  the  following  words : 

"  At  this  moment,  when  the  silver  question  is  attracting  universal  attention, 
it  may  interest  the  Department  to  know  that  for  some  time  past  there  have  been 
imported  into  this  country  large  quantities  of  Venezuelan  silver  coins  which 
have  been  discovered  to  be  of  unauthorized  coinage. 

1  1 


154  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

"  Since  1886  the  importation  of  foreign  silver  of  all  nationalities  has  been 
prohibited,  but  all  classes  of  gold  coins  and  Venezuelan  silver  have  until  now 
been  allowed  free  entry  and  are  constantly  being  introduced  through  the  custom 
houses.  It  now  appears  that  parties  abroad,  taking  advantage  of  the  low  price 
of  silver  bullion,  have  coined  hundreds  of  thousands  of  Venezuelan  silver  dollars, 
exact  facsimiles  of  the  emission  authorized  by  the  Government,  and  containing 
an  equal,  or,  as  it  is  said,  even  a  greater  amount  of  pure  silver. 

"  The  Government  has  acted  promptly  in  the  matter  and  issued  a  decree 
prohibiting  the  importation  from  abroad,  except  by  the  government,  of  Vene 
zuelan  silver  coins,  and  declaring  them  contraband  should  efforts  be  made  to 
introduce  them.  This  will  put  a  stop  to  the  business  through  the  custom-houses, 
but  large  amounts  will  no  doubt  continue  to  be  successfully  smuggled. 

"  It  is  a  striking  commentary  on  the  situation  that  such  a  speculation  is  pos 
sible,  producing,  it  is  said,  nearly  40  per  cent,  profit,  although  it  is  freely  admit 
ted  that  the  surreptitious  coins  are  in  all  respects  equal  to  those  authorized  by 
law. 

"Advices  from  Curacao,  which  is  and  always  has  been  a  dumping  ground 
for  money  of  all  nationalities,  show  that  Venezuelan  silver,  since  the  late  devel 
opments,  is  received  at  only  one-half  its  face  value;  moreover,  it  is  intimated 
that  it  will  soon  be  rejected  entirely." — Consular  Reports,  November,  1892,  p.  321. 

In  the  last  Congress  we  reduced  the  tariff  upon  opium  50  per  cent 
because  of  the  circumstance  that  opium  was  readily  and  most  suc 
cessfully  smuggled  —  the  profit  of  the  illegal  traffic  being  so  great. 
Silver,  of  course,  would  be  much  more  easily  brought  into  this  coun 
try,  and  the  evils  resulting  would  be  intolerable.  But  the  main  objec 
tion  is  that  first  stated.  It  ought  tot  be  conclusive  upon  those  who  are 
really  anxious  for  the  restoration  of  silver. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  remedy  for  all  our  ills  is  an  increased 
revenue,  and  that  the  passage  of  a  bill  to  add  $40,000,000  to  the 
income  of  the  Government  will  put  us  upon  a  satisfactory  basis.  The 
same  individuals  who  favor  the  tariff  bill  favor  the  bond  bill.  They 
say  that  we  must  have  the  revenue  and  also  the  proceeds  of  the  bonds, 
and  still  they  tell  us  that  if  we  have  the  revenue  we  do  not  need  the 
bonds.  The  records  plainly  show  that  the  deficiency  is  something 
less  for  the  last  year  than  the  amount  proposed  to  be  raised  by  the 
new  emergency  horizontal  tariff  bill,  and  still  we  must,  it  is  declared 
(and  this  sentiment  is  echoed  by  all  the  gold  monometallists),  have 
both  bonds  and  revenue.  And  now  comes  the  Republican  section 
of  the  gold  monometallists  and  informs  us  that  the  difficulty  consists 
wholly  in  a  lack  of  revenue.  I  think  that  a  majority  on  this  floor 
are  opposed  to  issuing-  bonds  at  all.  These  Senators  believe  that  such 
issuance  is  entirely  unnecessary,  and  that  there  is  enough  of  coin 
at  the  disposition  of  the  Government,  or  which  can  be  made  available 
to  meet  current  demands.  If  it  is  undesirable  to  raise  money  by 
issuing  bonds  because  of  the  burden  to  be  thus  put  upon  the  people, 
is  it  not  also  undesirable  to  tax  the  people  to  such  an  extent  that  the 
same  amount  of  money  will,  in  fact,  be  squeezed  out  of  them?  If  a 
hundred  millions  of  dollars  is  necessary  it  is  a  question  how  that 
money  should  be  obtained.  Are  the  people  of  the  United  States  pre 
pared  to  supply  it  by  means  of  taxation?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the 
general  sentiment  is  that  gold  obtained  either  as  the  result  of  taxation 
or  the  issuance  of  bonds  is  not  needed  ?  Our  friends  assert  that  gold 
is  essential;  that  we  must  have  gold,  and  that  we  will  have  plenty 
of  it  if  the  revenue  laws  are  amended  properly.  After  all,  the  money 
is  to  come  from  the  people.  The  burden  is  to  be  imposed  in  one  form 
or  the  other.  If  we  do  not  run  in  debt  it  will  be  because  we  con 
tribute  cash  from  our  own  individual  resources  instead  of  supplying 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  155 

it  upon  the  strength  of  governmental  promise.  If  we  are  to  have  a 
gold  standard,  and  if  we  are  to  further  debase  silver,  Mr.  Cleveland 
is  right.  He  should  have  authority  to  issue  gold  bonds;  he  should 
retire  all  greenbacks  and  Sherman  notes,  and  the  crisis  will  then  have 
been  reached.  Where  the  gold  is  to  come  from  to  maintain  us  in 
such  a  contingency  is  to  me  a  mystery. 

Our  friends  of  the  opposition  assert  and  reiterate  that  those  who 
favor  free  coinage  are  really  silver  monometallists.  This  accusation 
is  unfounded,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  ask  nothing  for  silver  that 
is  not  accorded  to  gold.  We  seek  to  impose  no  new  money  upon  this 
country  or  upon  the  world.  We  ask  that  the  gold  and  silver  which 
constitutes  the  coin  referred  to,  not  only  in  the  Constitution,  but  also 
in  our  obligations,  shall  be  used  honestly  and  carefully  and  patriotic 
ally  by  the  Treasury  in  such  a  way  as  to  maintain  the  parity  of  both 
by  ignoring  the  potency  of  neither.  To  assert  that  the  Government 
is  aiding  the  cause  of  silver  when  it  announces  that  silver  is  not  money 
save  in  a  restricted  sense,  and  by  continually  warning  Congress 
against  its  recognition,  is  as  unreasonable  as  it  is  contrary  to  instruc 
tion  of  the  Constitution.  The  attempt  to  evade  the  explicit  wording 
of  our  bonds  and  the  force  of  the  Matthews  resolution,  by  the  pre 
tense  that  the  act  declaring  that  the  parity  must  be  maintained  requires 
the  Treasurer  to  ignore  silver,  can  not  be  entertained  in  good  faith 
by  sensible  men. 

Those  who  favor  the  committee's  amendment  admit  that  it  would 
be  difficult  under  an  Administration  holding  the  financial  views  which 
dominate  Mr.  Cleveland's  Cabinet  and  which  controlled  Mr.  Harri 
son's  management  of  public  affairs,  to  fairly  enforce  a  free-coinage 
law.  Such  a  law  should  be  dealt  with  by  its  friends.  Day  by  day, 
hour  by  hour,  the  return  to  what  can  be  truly  called  sound  money  is 
made  more  and  more  embarrassing,  though  such  return  is  certain 
and  the  continuance  of  existing  conditions  impossible.  I  have  no 
doubt  that  free  coinage,  supplemented  by  efforts  made  in  good  faith 
by  officers  honestly  and  earnestly  seeking  to  establish  bimetallism, 
would  be  rewarded  by  the  accomplishment  of  every  promise  made  by 
the  advocates  of  silver,  and  that  the  results  of  such  exertions  would 
be  that  coin  would  be  paid  on  demand,  and  gold  and  silver  taken  indis 
criminately  and  without  injury  to  the  condition  of  the  Treasury.  It 
is  not  the  aim  of  the  silver  advocates  to  force  silver  only  upon  a 
creditor,  but  we  believe  that  the  debtor  has  some  rights,  and  that  when 
there  is  a  deliberate  attempt  by  speculators,  backed  by  tributary  news 
papers,  to  bankrupt  the  national  Treasury  through  such  invasions  as 
we  have  recently  witnessed,  the  Government  should  announce  that  it 
will  exercise  its  option  for  its  own  interest,  as  of  right  it  may  do.  It 
is  true  that  money  is  timid  and  that  financiers  must  often  be  treated 
in  the  most  tender  and  careful  manner  to  avoid  harrowing  their  feel 
ings.  They  are  touchy.  But  while  recognizing  this  situation  we 
must  draw  the  line  somewhere.  There  is  a  point  beyond  which  self- 
respect  and  self-defense  forbid  us  to  go,  and  a  time  must  come  when 
the  Government  will  control  money  matters  and  will  refuse  to  subject 
itself  to  the  personal  and  private  demands  of  those  whose  impudent 
dictations  it  now  tolerates. 

In  an  address  delivered  in  this  Chamber  on  the  22d  of  last  month 
the  Senator  from  Colorado  [Mr.  TELLER]  made  several  very  interest 
ing  statements  regarding  the  foreign  trade  of  England,  and  showed 


156  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

from  publications  contained  in  the  Statist  and  London  Economist  that 
the  foreign  trade  of  the  United  Kingdom  was  more  profitable  in  1895 
than  at  any  time  in  the  history  of  that  country.  The  Senator  upon 
the  same  occasion  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  our  policy  is  build 
ing  up  in  Asiatic  countries  a  competition  which  can  not  be  met.  As 
bearing  upon  this  proposition,  I  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  a 
report  made  by  our  consul-general  at  Shanghai,  Mr.  Jernigan,  and 
contained  on  pages  93  and  following,  of  volume  50,  No.  184,  Consular 
Reports.  The  article  is  entitled  "  Labor  and  Wages  in  China."  I 
quote : 

LABOR  AND    WAGES    IN    CHINA. 

No  country  in  the  world  is  more  abundantly  supplied  with  labor  than  China, 
and  in  no  country  in  the  world  does  the  laborer  receive  less  compensation.  A 
Chinese  laborer  will  save  money  on  wages  that  would  hardly  be  sufficient  to  sup 
ply  the  absolute  necessities  of  an  American  laborer.  This  is  made  possible  by 
the  cheapness  of  the  vegetable  diet  on  which  the  Chinese  laborer  is  content  to 
live;  the  small  cost  of  house  accommodations,  for  several  families  will  subdi 
vide  one  room  of  a  house  and  live  in  contentment  in  it,  and  the  low  price  paid 
for  clothing,  which  is  made  of  the  coarsest  cottons.  But  the  cheapness  of  labor 
in  China  does  not  mean  that  the  products  of  that  labor  are  inferior  in  quality. 
The  Japanese  laborer,  receiving  higher  wages,  is  more  artistic  in  his  work — his 
productions  are  more  finished;  in  dyes  and  in  the  blending  of  colors  he  is  su 
perior  to  his  Chinese  rival,  but  in  substantial  and  lasting  quality  the  latter  is  fully 
the  equal  and  in  some  instances  the  superior. 

The  silk  that  comes  from  the  looms  of  Japan  compares  in  gloss  and  fineness 
with  any  in  the  world,  and  Japanese  crapes  have  a  reputation  in  almost  every 
market  for  softness  of  beauty  and  harmony  of  color;  but  for  substantial  wear, 
for  lasting  quality,  the  silk  goods  of  China  are  most  favorably  known  to  the 
merchants  of  all  lands. 

Among  western  nations  the  impression  prevailed  at  one  time  that  Asiatic 
races  were  more  imitative  than  original,  and  that  in  the  industrial  departments, 
where  originality  was  the  chief  element  of  success,  the  Occident  need  not  fear 
the  Orient  as  a  rival.  The  test  has:  been  made,  and  the  result  has  greatly  modi 
fied  if  not  entirely  removed  the  impression.  Within  the  last  quarter  of  a  cen 
tury  Japan  has  thrown  off  a  most  oppressive  form  of  feudalism  and  advanced  to 
the  forefront  as  a  nation  of  progressive  ideas.  Twenty-five  years  ago  a  system 
of  government  obtained  in  Japan  which  discouraged  all  liberal  enterprise.  Cen 
turies  of  political  slavery,  intrenched  in  formidable  prejudices,  seemed  to  have 
crushed  out  the  very  soul  of  the  Japanese  people,  and  the  Empire  was  dominated 
by  the  tyranny  of  great  feudal  chiefs,  the  remains  of  whose  castles,  now  scat 
tered  over  Japan,  attest  to  the  traveler  the  strength  and  wealth  of  the  former 
owners  and  the  servitude  and  poverty  of  their  retainers. 

All  has  given  place  to  an  enlarged  liberty.  With  the  adoption  of  a  written 
constitution,  the  Japanese  mind  began  to  develop  more  rapidly,  and  in  defining, 
by  a  written  law,  the  organic  structure  of  his  Empire,  the  Emperor  of  Japan  not 
only  did  what  no  other  Asiatic  ruler  has  ever  done,  but  caused  a  new  era  to 
dawn  upon  Japan. 

The  gates  of  the  Empire  of  Japan,  so  long  closed  to  the  Westerner,  were 
opened  to  his  coming,  and  the  Japanese  soon  learned  to  appreciate  and  utilize  the 
productions  of  Western  thought  and  skill.  Today,  the  navy  yards,  arsenals,  fac 
tories,  banks,  and  large  commercial  houses  of  Japan  prove  that  there  is  in  Japan 
ese  character  a  reserve  force  which  is  destined,  if  judiciously  regulated  and 
directed,  to  assure  still  greater  achievements  in  industrial  fields.  The  attestations 
are  too  numerous  to  .leave  doubt  that  the  Japanese  are  not  only  original  in  con 
ception,  but  possess  the  power  of  concentration  and  execution. 

******* 

And  the  problem  of  China's  awakening  should  not  be  solved  without  the 
intelligent  influence  of  the  business  men  of  the  United  States.  The  solution  will 
involve  more  intimate  and  valuable  trade  relations  with  western  nations,  as  well 
as  define  such  relations  in  their  future  extent  and  value.  Occupying  the  more 
favored  geographical  position,  the  United  States  can  and  should  send  to  China 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


157 


much  of  their  overproductions  in  exchange,  if  not  absolute  sales,  for  those  of 
China's  products  that  may  be  needed. 

During  the  last  fiscal  year  the  value  of  the  trade  relations  between  Japan 
and  the  United  States  was  estimated,  in  round  numbers,  at  $28,000,000,  but  the 
figures  show  a  balance  against  the  United  States  of  $19,000,000.  Japan  is  nearer 
to  the  United  States  than  any  other  Western  nation,  and  several  thousand  miles 
nearer  .than  Great  Britain,  and  yet  the  balance  sheet,  for  comparison,  between 
Japan  and  Great  Britain  shows  a  balance  in  favor  of  the  latter  about  as  large  as 
the  balance  against  the  United  States. 

During  the  same  period,  the  value  of  the  aggregate  trade  relations  between 
China  and  the  United  States  was  estimated  at  $24,000,000,  with  a  balance 
against  the  United  States  of  $16,000,000,  while  in  China,  as  in  Japan,  Great 
Britain  checks  off  large  balances  in  her  favor,  although  more  remote  from  China 
by  thousands  of  miles. 

The  population  of  China  is  many  times  larger  than  the  population  of  Japan, 
and  with  the  varied  productions  of  the  United  States  there  ought  to  be  a  much 
more  valuable  trade  with  China.  This  consideration  should  be  regarded  as  of 
special  importance  at  a  time  when  the  symptoms  of  political  and  commercial 
changes  in  China  appear  so  clearly,  even  on  the  surface.  When  the  400,000,000 
Chinese  feel  the  influence  of  Western  civilization  they  will,  as  their  Japanese 
neighbors  have  done,  acquire  and  assimilate  in  many  respects  the  habits  and 
desires  of  the  Westerner,  and  the  United  States  should  be  prepared  to  supply 
their  share  of  the  demands. 

European  nations  are  sustaining  the  efforts  of  European  merchants  more 
substantially  than  the  American  merchant  is  sustained.  The  latter,  in  the  com 
petition  for  Asiatic  trade,  has  to  rely  upon  his  own  skill  and  energy,  while 
the  merchants  of  Europe  are  encouraged  by  the  aid  given  to  the  great  steamship 
lines  which  carry  their  flags  and  pour  the  productions  of  Europe  into  Asiatic 
ports.  At  the  port  of  Shanghai,  the  great  commercial  and  distributing  center  of 
Asiatic  trade,  Great  Britain,  France,  and  Germany  have  direct  mail  and  commer 
cial  communication — the  steamers  entering  and  leaving  the  port  every  week, 
carrying  the  flags  of  their  respective  nationalities,  while  no  ship  carrying  the 
American  mail  and  flying  the  Stars  and  Stripes  touches  at  Shanghai  at  all.  The 
American  merchant  must  often  unduly  wait  for  his  mail  after  its  arrival  at 
Yokohama,  and  send  his  purchases  in  foreign  bottoms  to  the  ports  of  his  native 
land.  The  trade  relations  of  the  United  States  with  China  can  not  be  satisfac 
torily  enlarged  until  American  merchants  are  secured  a  more  advantageous  posi 
tion.  They  can  not  successfully  compete  for  Asiatic  trade,  even  with  the  natural 
advantages  of  their  geographical  position,  when  such  advantages  are  so  greatly 
neutralized  by  such  resources  and  means  at  the  command  of  their  competitors  as 
referred  to. 


These  observations  have  been  suggested  by  the  following  table  showing  the 
price  of  Chinese  labor : 

Wages  of  Chinese  at  Shanghai  September  30,  1895,  reduced  to  American 

currency. 


Wages  \ 

idth  food. 

Description 

Per  day. 

Per  month. 

Blacksmith  

$0.13 

Brass  worker  

.16 

Barber 

03 

Bootmaker  : 
Native... 

.10 

Foreign  .       .  .. 

$5.28 

Bamboo  cabinetmaker  

.11 

Bricklayer 

10 

Compositor  : 
Native  . 

5.28 

Foreign  

7.92  to  15.84 

Carpenter... 

.11 

158 


SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


Wages  of  Chinese  at  Shanghai  September  30,  1895,  reduced  to  American 
Currency —  Continued. 


Description. 


Wages  with  food. 


Per  Day.   Per  Month. 


Cabinetmaker 

Cooly* 

Bookbinder : 

Native 

Foreign* 

Lithographer* 

Furniture  polisher 

Tailor : 

Native 

Foreign 

Pressman 

Coachman : 

Native 

Foreign 

House  boy : 

Native* 

Foreign 

Cotton-mill  machinist 

Cotton-factory  hands 


.13 
.13 


4.22 

6.34 

10.56 


.21 
.10 


6.34 
6.34 

3.17 
6.84 

2.11 
4.75 


11  to  .22 
.18 


*Without  food. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  too  late  at  this  time  to  enter  into  a  discussion 
of  the  arguments  made  yesterday  and  at  different  times  during  this 
debate  to  the  effect  that  gold  has  not  appreciated.  In  this  connection 
I  beg  leave  to  quote  certain  remarks  made,  by  me  when  speaking  upon 
this  same  subject  in  the  address  delivered  in  the  Senate  in  1893.  I 
then  said : 

To  begin  with,  these  gentlemen  all  admit  that  a  certain  quantity  of  gold  will 
now  buy  about  50  per  cent,  more  of  the  necessaries  of  life  than  could  have  been 
purchased  with  the  same  amount  of  the  same  metal  at  the  time  of  the  demone 
tization  of  silver  in  1873.  But  they  contend  that  this  is  due  to  improved 
machinery,  to  new  and  more  economical  methods  of  production.  I  think  that  the 
address  made  by  the  able  Senator  from  Missouri  [Mr.  VEST]  at  thq  opening  of 
this  discussion  disposes  of  this  subject,  and  I  will  not  spend  much  time  discussing 
it.  I  have  had  the  pleasure  of  listening  to  arguments  wherein  it  was  stated  that 
wages  are  higher  now  than  ever,  and  that  hence  it  follows  that  gold  had  not 
fallen.  It  may  well  be  doubted  whether  there  is  any  foundation  for  this  asser 
tion,  save  in  a  very  limited  classification,  but  assuming  it  to  be  true  that  wages 
are  higher  with  reference  to  certain  industries,  that  increase  is  obviously  attribu 
table  to  other  causes. 

But  if  wages  have  increased,  is  such  increase  due  to  the  monometallic  stand 
ard,  and  must  wages  depreciate  because  of  the  Sherman  law?  Are  we  to  suppose 
that  no  other  cause  or  causes  influenced  wages  in  this  country  than  the  action  of 
our  Government  regarding  currency?  During  the  last  campaign  gentlemen  who 
now  sit  in  this  Chamber  were  preaching  Democracy  to  assembled  multitudes, 
and  they  never  gave  as  a  reason  for  appreciation  of  wages  the  argument  they 
rely  upon  here.  Do  they  still  hold  to  their  older  and  oft-asserted  view?  Is  it 
true  that  wages  have,  appreciated  merely  because  we  demonetized  silver? 

I  well  remember  that  we  all  contended,  and  I  think  with  much  force,  that 
the  well-organized  exertions  of  trades  unions  had  much  to  do  with  keeping  up 
labor  prices.  No  general  rule  can  be  applied  to  this  matter  from  which  any  such 
deduction  as  that  insisted  upon  by  the  Senator  from  Delaware  is  authorized.  In 
the  same  States  for  the  same  class  of  labor  and  the  same  number  of  hours  differ 
ent  rates  are  charged.  North,  South,  East  and  West  prices  vary,  depending 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  159 

often  upon  the  mere  ability  of  the  laborer  to  obtain  his  rights,  and  in  some 
instances  of  the  employer  to  procure  his  work  to  be  done  at  a  reasonable  rate. 

******* 

One  of  the  most  distinguished  monometallists  of  Great  Britain  is  Mr.  Giffen, 
chief  of  the  statistical  department  of  the  board  of  trade,  and  although  he  has 
not  seen  fit  in  his  later  work  to  republish  the  views  I  am  about  to  quote,  I 
desire,  nevertheless,  to  quote  an  abstract  from  his  paper  entitled,  "  Recent 
changes  in  prices  and  incomes  compared."  He  there  positively  places  himself 
upon  record  in  support  of  the  proposition  that  gold  has  notably  appreciated,  and, 
moreover,  he  argued  that  this  appreciation  was  likely  to  continue,  and  that 
therein  was  found  the  true  explanation  of  the  fall  in  the  price  of  commodities. 

In  1879  he  pointed  out  that  this  rise  would  soon  become  evident.  Let  me 
quote : 

"  If  the  test  of  prophecy  be  the  event,  there  was  never  surely  a  better  fore 
cast.  The  fall  of  prices  in  such  a  general  way  as  to  amount  to  what  is  known 
as  a  rise  in  the  purchasing  power  of  gold  is  generally,  I  might  almost  say  univer 
sally,  admitted.  Measured  by  any  commodity  or  group  of  commodities  usually 
taken  as  the  measure  for  such  a  purpose,  gold  is  undoubtedly  possessed  of  more 
purchasing  power  than  was  the  case  fifteen  or  twenty  years  ago,  and  this  high 
purchasing  power  has  been  continued  over  a  long  enough  period  to  allow  for 
all  minor  oscillations." 


The  Senator  from  Delaware  argues,  as  do  many  of  the  authorities,  that  the 
fall  in  the  value  of  the  various  commodities  is  due  to  the  great  development 
which  has  been  made  in  the  arts,  and  he  calls  attention  to  Bessemer  steel  as  a 
notable  instance.  So  it  is  a  notable  instance,  and  so  far  as  steel  is  concerned,  it 
is  clearly  established  that  improved  methods  have  lessened  the  cost;  and  there 
are  many  similar  cases. 

If  the  fall  in  prices  was  due  to  improvements  in  machinery  the  prices 
would  be  maintained  with  reference  to  those  articles  regarding  which  there  had 
been  no  improvements  affecting  production,  and  in  cases  where  inventions  and 
new  appliances  had  diminished  the  cost  the  depreciation  would  be  noticed.  But 
we  know  that  there  has  been  a  uniform  fall  of  prices  all  along  the  line,  and  the 
tables  and  charts  prepared  by  eminent  statisticians  clearly  prove  that  the  drop 
has  been  general  and  is  therefore  due  to  some  cause  utterly  different  from  that 
to  which  Sir  John  Lubbock  and  others  attribute  it.  For  instance,  let  us  take 
wool,  at  present  very  low.  My  Republican  friends  may  say  that  this  is  because 
our  people  are  afraid  of  tariff  changes.  Let  us  assume,  and  take  a  date 
anterior  to  the  triumph  of  the  Democratic  ticket,  and  it  will  be  found  that  when 
wool  was  exceedingly  dull  throughout  the  country,  and  on  the  Pacific  Coast, 
where  the  staple  is  short,  owing  to  the  circumstance  that  we  are  compelled  to 
clip  twice  a  year,  wool  was  so  low  prior  to  Mr.  Cleveland's  election  that  it  did 
not  even  reach  the  duty  line. 

It  is  untrue  that  the  expense  of  woolgrowing  has  become  less  and  less  as 
years  have  rolled  by.  When  a  child  I  have  seen  thousands  of  sheep  roaming 
over  the  public  domain,  the  pasturage  of  which  cost  the  man  who  owned  them 
not  a  cent.  Gradually,  as  the  progressive  American  moved  over  this  territory 
and  took  it  up  under  the  homestead  and  pre-emption  laws,  the  ranges  were  cur 
tailed  and  the  sheep  w,ere  driven  back,  so  that  now  many  of  them  subsist  at  cer 
tain  seasons  on  the  mountain  sides,  sometimes  at  an  altitude  of  from  8,000  to 
10,000  feet  above  the  sea,  there  seeking  with  difficulty  that  support  before  readily 
obtained.  Hence  the  expense  of  maintenance  has  increased.  Besides,  lands  have 
become  useful  for  other  purposes,  and  the  sheep  in  the  West  is  becoming  more 
and  more  a  burden. 

Therefore  there  is  depression  not  alone  in  those  lines  concerning  which  the 
cost  of  production  is  lessened,  but  it  is  found  all  throughout  the  list,  demonstrat 
ing  to  you  as  legislative  physicians  that  some  other  prescription  must  be 
applied  than  was  suggested  by  the  Senators  who  are  opposed  to  me. 

I  believe  that  a  careful  analysis  of  the  situation  will  show  numerous  exam 
ples  which  can  not  be  explained  upon  the  basis  expressed  in  the  ably  conducted 
argument  of  the  Senator  from  Delaware.  I  have  not  had  time  to  carefully  scan 
this  branch  of  our  dispute,  but  have  said  enough  to  suggest  a  conclusion.  In  the 
matter  of  eggs  there  has  not  been  any  invention  promoting  production.  The 
ancient  methods  are  still  utilized.  And  yet  I  find  there  the  same  depreciation. 


160  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

It  has  been  frequently  stated,  and  truly,  that  the  gold  price  of  silver  prior 
to  1873  was  remarkably  stable,  and  that  since  that  time  it  has  been  utterly  un 
stable.  But  the  theory  that  silver  has  depreciated  and  gold  remained  stable  does 
not  account  for  admitted  phenomena.  1  refer  to  the  phenomena  which  I  have 
just  recited.  Suppose  that  we  adopt  a  gold  standard,  pure  and  simple,  mani 
festly  when  gold  is  very  plentiful  it  will  buy  fewer  things,  and  this  is  called  a 
rise  in  prices.  When  gold  is  scarce  it  will  buy  more  of  everything.  This  means 
a  fall  in  prices.  There  is  no  mystery  as  to  this.  The  experience  of  every  gold- 
standard  country  in  the  world  discloses  a  universal  fall  in  the  prices  of  commo 
dities. 

And  let  be  remembered — and  it  is  a  most  cogent  circumstance— that  this 
depreciation  does  not  antedate  1873.  If  we  are  trying  this  case  upon  its 
merits,  and  are  to  enter  a  judgment  upon  it,  let  us  look  at  the  evidence.  The 
rule  suggested  by  the  other  side  does  not  apply,  because  the  fail  is  universal 
and  the  diminished  cost  of  production  is  not  universal. 

Then  we  have  this  other  significant  feature,  that  the  fall  in  the  price  of 
commodities  dates  from  1873  or  thereabouts— the  date  of  the  demonetization 
of  silver.  Why  is  this  remarkable  coincidence  presented?  There  may  be 
some  means  other  than  that  hinted  at  to  account  for  it.  I  am  not  here  to 
withhold  any  information.  I  know  that  I  am  obliged  to  bring  forth  every 
fact  that  will  tend  to  elucidate.  The  truth  should  be  known  that  we  may 
legislate  wisely  and  in  the  interest  of  the  people  whom  we  represent.  I 
can  not  find  and  have  not  heard  any  explanation,  in  harmony  with  the  gold- 
appreciation  theory,  of  the  incidents  which  I  have  cited. 

In  China,  where  gold  is  a  mere  commodity  and  is  sold  just  as  lead  or  tin 
would  be  in  this  country,  prices  have  not  varied  in  twenty  years.  This  infor 
mation  I  derive  from  an  article  quoted  in  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle  and 
written  by  W.  S.  Wetmore.  for  the  Hongkong  papers.  Wr.  Wetmore  selected 
some  twenty  articles  for  his  index  numbers  and  discovered  that  the  prices 
had  been  practically  stationary  since  1873,  while  gold  had  risen  nearly  50  per 
cent. 

In  a  recent  article  by  the  same  gentleman,  printed  in  the  North  China 
News,  he  shows  that  notwithstanding  the  enormous  depreciation  in  the  gold 
price  of  silver  in  Europe,  America  and  India,  there  has  been  no  variation  of 
importance  in  either  China  or  Japan.  He  gives  an  instance  within  his  own 
personal  experience  to  illustrate  his  meaning.  Seventeen  years  ago  he  employed 
a  boy,  at  a  salary  of  twenty-one  Mexican  dollars  a  month,  and  although  at 
the  present  time  silver  is  worth  in  gold  less  than  a  third  of  its  former  price, 
Mr.  Wetmore  has  discovered  that  his  servant  is  able  to  live  now  just  as  well 
as  he  did  in  1876,  and  has  not  deprived  himself  of  any  of  the  advantages  which 
he  then  enjoyed,  although,  as  I  have  said,  commodities  have  not  fallen. 

At  the  risk  of  being  tautological,  I  will  say  that  in  all  the  great  silver-using 
countries  of  the  world  an  ounce  of  silver  will  buy  just  as  much  of  the  necessi 
ties  of  life  at  this  day  as  could  have  been  bought  twenty  years  ago.  If  gold 
is  declared  to  be  the  standard  of  the  world,  and  if  it  is  said  that  there  is  no 
other  kind  of  money,  gold  will  be  more  sought  for,  there  will  be  greater 
need  for  it,  its  purchasing  power  will  necessarily  increase. 

If  half  the  stock  of  gold  were  destroyed,  no  one  doubts  that  the  remaining 
portion  would  be  more  valuable.  And  so  if  the  use  to  which  gold  is  applied  be 
made  more  extended,  if  it  becomes  more  essential  to  the  public  comfort,  so 
will  we  be  more  anxious  to  get  it,  so  will  its  purchasing  power  develop.  This 
subject  was  very  ably  and  thoroughly  discussed  by  the  distinguished  Senator 
from  Nevada  in  his  argument  before  the  Brussels  conference.  Indeed,  he 
left  nothing  to  be  said  upon  the  subject.  The  man  who  insists  that  the  less 
money  we  have  in  the  world  the  better  off  we  are  is  no  more  inconsistent 
than  the  party  who  admits,  as  he  must,  that  the  legislation  of  the  world  has 
been  in  favor  of  gold,  and  that  metal  has  been  cornered  and  placed  in  a  few 
hands,  and  still  insists  that  its  purchasing  power  has  not  increased. 

A  very  instructive  and  interesting1  article  on  this  topic  by  the 
Mexican  minister,  Mr.  Romero,  can  be  found  in  the  June  (1895) 
number  of  the  North  American  Review. 

It  is  sufficient  to  say  in  general  of  this  measure  that  no  doubt 
there  are  large  interests  in  the  United  States  which  might  be  affected 
adversely  by  the  free  coinage  of  silver.  Those  whose  business  it  has 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  161 

been  to  reduce  the  value  of  that  metal  and  who  have  been  growing 
wealthier  day  by  day  in  consequence  of  that  policy  will  realize  reduced 
profits  with  corresponding  gain  to  the  public  at  large.  Those  whose 
monetary  and  selfish  programme  has  been  thus  far  followed,  and 
whose  power  has  been,  unfortunately  and  I  trust  but  temporarily, 
fastened  upon  the  American  people,  can  not  be  expected  to  willingly 
release  the  great  advantages  which  have  accrued  to  them.  They 
necessarily  struggle;  they  necessarily  denounce.  The  newspapers 
which  they  own  and  to  whose  support  they  largely  contribute  also 
join  in  the  calumniating  cry.  But  those  of  us  who  believe  in  free 
coinage,  and  who  have  uniformly  and  fearlessly  asserted  our  views 
in  that  direction,  are  not  to  be  deterred  from  the  discharge  of  our 
duties  by  either  threats  or  prophecies  of  personal  calamity. 

While  the  change  proposed  would  bring  about  some  disturbance, 
we  must  recollect  that  business  affairs  are  far  from  settled  now.  The 
great  gulf  that  separates  the  poor  and  the  rich  is  daily  becoming 
more  and  more  pronounced.  While  not  interfering  with  property 
rights,  we  must  recognize  prevailing  conditions.  I  do  not  apprehend 
anarchy,  revolution,  or  kindred  horrors.  Milder  remedies  are  within 
reach.  If  the  wrongs  to  which  I  refer  really  prevail,  if  my  conclu 
sions  are  well  founded,  the  people  have  the  power  in  their  hands  to 
redress  their  grievances. 

It  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  true  solution  will  be  reached,  that  those 
arguments  upon  which  we  have  relied  and  in  which  we  have  full  faith 
will  be  controlling  at  the  polls.  The  American  people,  Mr.  President, 
have  not  lost  their  right  to  vote.  If  they  are  suffering  it  is  their  own 
fault,  not  deliberate,  perhaps,  not  wilfull;  it  is  true,  but  nevertheless 
the  consequences  of  misconception  because  of  inattention  or  the  result 
of  neglect. 

The  true  American  who  has  faith  in  the  system  under  which  he 
lives  has  the  utmost  confidence  that  all  political  issues,  whether 
economic  or  other,  will  be  solved  justly  and  patriotically.  Even  those 
whom  the  Senator  from  Wisconsin  [Mr.  VILAS]  informs  us  do  not 
understand  financial  problems  because  of  engrossing  cares  and  ardu 
ous  occupation,  have,  I  think,  more  knowledge  of  the  real  nature  of 
our  troubles  and  certainly  more  disposition  to  redress  them  than  many 
more  favorably  surrounded.  The  masses  will  soon  unite,  not  for 
blood  and  lawlessness,  but  in  the  peaceful  and  determined  effort  to 
enforce  at  the  ballot  box  those  policies  which,  however  odious  to  gold 
monopolists,  are  essential  to  the  happiness  and  comfort  of  the  people. 

APPENDIX. 

DEMOCRATIC    AUTHORITY    ON    BONDS    AND     NATIONAL    BANKS. 

National-bank  notes  shall  be  retired,  their  further  issue  prohibited,  and 
United  States  Treasury  notes  substituted  therefor.  The  power  to  issue  paper 
money  and  coin  as  a  legal  tender  is  only  vested  in  the  National  Government. 

Arkansas,  1878. 

COLORADO. 

In  1878  Colorado  denounced  "the  retirement  and  destruction  of  legal- 
tender  notes  and  the  maintainance  of  the  national  banking  system,"  and  said : 

"  No  further  increase  in  the  bonded  debt  and  no  further  sale  of  bonds  for 
the  purchase  of  coin  for  resumption  purposes;  a  gradual  extinction  of  the 
public  debt  by  the  redemption  of  the  interest-bearing  portion  thereof  in  such 
currency  as  the  law  will  permit." 


162  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


ILLINOIS. 

That  the  present  system  of  national  banks  can  and  should  be  abolished  at 
once,  and  the  notes  of,  such  institutions  redeemed  and  their  place  relieved  by 
non-interest  bearing  notes  of  the  Government,  thus  saving  to  the  people  annually 
$20,000,000. — Illinois  State  Democratic  Platform,  1868. 

That  it  is  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  the  United  States  to  issue  all  bills  to 
circulate  as  money,  and  a  right  which  ought  not  to  be  exercised  by  any  State 
or  corporation.  That  the  national-bank  notes  should  be  redeemed,  and  instead 
thereof  there  should  be  issued  by  the  Government  an  equal  amount  of  Treasury 
notes. — Illinois  State  Democratic  platform,  1878. 

INDIANA. 

That  the  national  bank  system  organized  in  the  interest  of  bondholders 
ought  to  be  abolished  and  United  States  notes  substituted  in  lieu  of  the 
national-bank  currency,  thus  saving  to  the  people  in  interest  alone  more  than 
$18,000,000  a  year;  and,  until  such  system  of  banks  be  abolished,  we  demand 
that  the  shares  of  such  banks  in  Indiana  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  taxation, 
State  and  municipal,  as  other  property  of  the  State. — Indiana  Democratic  State 
platform,  1868. 

We  are  in  favor  of  the  repeal  of  the  national-bank  law  and  the  substitution 
of  greenbacks  for  the  national-bank  currency. — Indiana  State  Democratic 
platform,  1874. 

1876:  We  declare  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  measures  looking  to  the 
gradual  retirement  of  the  circulation  of  the  national  banks  and  the  substitution 
therefor  of  circulating  notes  issued  by  the  authorities  of  Government. 

1878 :  The  right  to  issue  paper  money  as  well  as  coin  is  the  exclusive 
prerogative  of  the  Government.  *  *  *  We  demand  that  the  national-bank 
notes  shall  be  retired,  and  in  lieu  thereof  shall  be  issued  by  the  Government 
an  equal  amount  of  Treasury  notes  with  full  legal-tender  quality. 

IOWA. 

That  the  national-bank  system,  organized  in  the  interest  of  bondholders, 
ought  to  be  abolished  and  United  States  notes  substituted  in  lieu  of  the  national- 
bank  currency,  thus  saving  the  people  in  interest  alone  more  than  $18,000,000 
annually;  and,  until  such  system  of  banks  shall  be  abolished,  we  demand  that 
the  shares  of  such  banks  in  Iowa  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  taxes,  State 
and  municipal,  as  other  property  of  the  State. — Iowa  State  Democratic  platform, 
1868. 

1869:     A  national  debt  is  a  national  curse. 

1875 :  We  favor  a  sufficient  supply  of  national  currency  for  business 
purposes.  Opposition  to  the  present  national  banking  law. 

1876:     The  resumption  law  should  at  once  be  repealed. 

1877 :  We  favor  the  retention  of  a  greenback  currency,  and  declare  against 
any  further  contraction,  and  we  favor  substitution  of  greenbacks  for  national- 
bank  bills. 

We  deprecate  the  funding  of  our  non-interest-bearing  debt.  *  *  *  jWe 
oppose  any  further  retirement  of  the  United  States  notes  now  in  circulation, 
and  favor  the  substitution  of  national  Treasury  notes  for  national-bank  bills. — 
Iowa  State  Democratic  platform,  1878. 

1879:  We  are  in  favor  of  the  substitution  of  United  States  Treasury  notes 
for  national-bank  notes,  and  of  the  abolition  of  national  banks  as  banks  of 
issue.  *  *  *  We  favor  a  reduction  of  the  bonded  debt  as  fast  as  practicable 
and  the  application  of  the  idle  money  in  the  Treasury  to  that  purpose. 

KANSAS. 

We  demand  the  repeal  of  the  national-bank  law,  and  that  the  Government 
shall  issue  a  legal-tender  currency  direct  from  the  Treasury. — Kansas  State 
Democratic  platform,  1874. 

1876:  We  demand  that  the  act  of  Congress  creating  the  national  banking 
system  be  repealed;  that  the  notes  of  the  national  banks  be  withdrawn  from 
circulation,  and  in  lieu  thereof  the  paper  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  be  substituted.  That  as  Congress  has  the  sole  power  to  coin  money 
and  regulate  the  value  thereof,  it  should  also  have  the  sole  power  to  provide  a 
paper  currency  for  the  people. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  163 

1876:  We  are  opposed  to  all  banks  of  issue,  whether  chartered  by  Congress 
or  the  State  legislature,  and  we  desire  that  banking  on  the  part  of  corporations 
or  private  individuals  shall  be  confined  by  law  exclusively  to  exchange, 
discounts,  and  deposit. 

That  as  Congress  has  sole  power  to  coin  money  and  regulate  the  value 
thereof  under  the  Constitution,  it  should  also  exercise  the  sole  power  of  pro 
viding  a  paper  currency  to  be  used  as  money.  *  *  *  That  we  favor  the 
retirement  of  national-bank  notes  and  substitution  of  Treasury  notes,  commonly 
called  greenbacks,  in  their  stead. — Kansas  State  Democratic  platform,  1878. 

LOUISIANA. 

1878 :  The  Louisiana  Democracy  demands  that  the  national  banking  system 
should  be  abolished  and  national-bank  notes  retired,  and  in  lieu  thereof  that 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  should  issue  an  equal  amount  of  Treasury 
notes,  commonly  known  as  greenbacks. 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

1868.  Every  dollar  received  by  taxation  from  the  people  not  absolutely 
necessary  for  the  economical  and  legitimate  expenses  of  the  Government  to  be 
applied  to  the  payment  of  the  public  debt. 

1877:  Resolved,  That  the  practice  of  borrowing  money  for  other  objects 
than  those  of  strict  public  necessity  has  generated  schemes  of  extravagant 
expenditure,  until  taxation  has  become  well-nigh  an  intolerable  burden.  Hon 
esty,  economy,  and  "  pay  as  we  go  "  should  be  the  rule  in  all  the  appropriations 
of  the  peoples'  money.  The  power  of  the  State,  counties,  cities,  and  towns  to 
borrow  money  ought  to  be  rigidly  limited,  so  that  an  end  may  be  put  to  the 
system  which  "  anticipates  the  labor  of  coming  ages  and  appropriates  the  fruits 
of  it  in  advance;  which  coins  the  industry  of  future  generations  into  cash  and 
snatches  the  inheritance  from  children  yet  unborn." 

MICHIGAN. 

1879:  We  demand  that  all  money,  whether  paper  or  metallic,  shall  be 
issued  by  the  General  Government  only,  and  made  a  full  legal  tender  for  all 
debts,  public  anH  private,  except  as  to  such  contracts  heretofore  made  as  were 
originally  payable  in  coin.  We  are  opposed  to  all  banks  of  issue,  and  demand 
that  greenbacks  shall  be  substituted  in  place  of  national-bank  bills. 

MINNESOTA. 

1878:  We  are  opposed  to  any  increase  of  the  bonded  debt,  and  to  the 
sale  of  bonds  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  coin  for  resumption  purposes.  We 
are  in  favor  of  the  gradual  substitution  of  national  Treasury  notes  for  national- 
bank  notes  and  making  such  Treasury  notes  the  sole  paper  currency  of  the 
country,  and  placed  on  such  basis  as  that  the  same  shall  be  equal  in  value 
with  coin,  and  as  a  legal  tender  the  same  as  coin. 

MISSOURI. 

We  regard  the  national  banking  system  as  being  oppressive  and  burden 
some,  and  demand  the  abolition  and  retirement  from  circulation  of  all  national- 
bank  notes  and  the  issue  of  legal-tender  notes  in  lieu  thereof,  and  in  quantities 
from  time  to  time  sufficient  to  supply  the  wholesome  and  necessary  business 
demands  of  the  entire  country,  and  that  all  greenbacks  so  issued  shall  be  used 
in  the  purchase  and  retirement  of  the  bonds  of  the  United  States,  so  that  the 
interest-bearing  debt  of  the  country  may  be  lessened  to  the  extent  of  the 
greenbacks  thus  put  into  circulation. — Missouri  State  Democratic  platform, 
1878. 

MAINE. 

That  so  long  as  the  currency  consists  in  whole  or  in  part  of  paper  money, 
issued  under  the  authority  of  the  National  Government,  such  paper  should 
be  issued  directly  by  the  Government  itself,  and  that  the  great  and  valuable 
privilege  of  issuing  three  hundred  millions  of  this  money,  yielding  _  a  profit 
equal  to  eighteen  millions  annually  in  gold,  has  been  too  long  enjoyed  by 
favored  individuals  associated  under  the  national-bank  law,  and  should  be  forth- 


164  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

with   assumed    by    the    people    represented    by    the    political    authority    of    the 
United  States.— Maine  State  Democratic  platform,  1868. 

1878:  The  payment  of  the  bonded  debt  of  the  United  States  as  rapidly  as 
practicable.  No  further  issue  of  Government  bonds  whereby  equal  taxation 
with  the  other  property  of  the  country  is  avoided.  *  *  *  We  are  opposed 
to  an  irredeemable  currency,  but  believe  in  a  currency  for  the  Government 
and  people,  the  laborer  and  officeholder,  the  pensioner  and  soldier,  the  pro 
ducer  and  the  bondholder.  We  are  opposed  to  the  present  national  banking 
system  and  in  favor  of  the  gradual  substitution  of  greenbacks  for  national  bank 
bills. 

NEBRASKA. 

1878:  We  demand  the  gradual  substitution  of  United  States  legal-tender 
paper  for  national  bank  notes  and  its  permanent  establishment  as  the  sole  paper 
money  of  the  country;  the  immediate  repeal  of  the  national  banking  act;  no 
further  issue  of  interest-bearing  bonds ;  no  further  sale  of  bonds  for  the  pur 
chase  of  coin  for  resumption  purposes,  but  a  gradual  extinction  of  the  public 
debt. 

NEVADA. 

The  substitution  of  the  United  States  currency  for  the  national  bank  notes. 
No  further  sale  of  interest-bearing  bonds  for  coin  for  resumption  purposes, 
but  the  gradual  reduction  of  the  public  debt. — Nevada  State  Democratic  plat 
form,  1878. 

NEW    HAMPSHIRE. 

1878 :  One  currency  for  the  Government  and  the  people,  the  laborer  and  the 
officeholder,  the  pensioner  and  the  soldier,  the  producer  and  the  bondholder. 
That  whatever  currency  is  issued  by  the  Government  should  be  issued  for  the 
benefit  of  the  whole  people,  and  not  for  the  benefit  of  capitalists  at  the  expense 
of  the  people. 

OHIO. 

1869:  We  denounce  the  national  banking  system  as  one  of  the  worst  out 
growths  of  the  bonded  debt,  which  unnecessarily  increases  the  burden  of  the 
people  $30,000,000  annually,  and  we  demand  its  immediate  repeal. 

1870 :  We  are  opposed  to  the  system  of  national  banks,  and  demand  the 
immediate  repeal  of  the  law  creating  them,  and  that  in  place  of  the  notes  of 
such  banks  Treasury  notes  of  the  United  States  should  be  substituted. 

1871 :     Honor  and  duty  alike  require  the  honest  payment  of  the  public  debt. 

Believing  that  a  better  system  can  be  devised,  and  one  that  will  be  free  from 
unjust  privileges,  we  are  in  favor  of  abolishing  the  franchises  of  the  national 
banks  to  issue  a  paper  currency  as  soon  as  the  same  can  safely  and  prudently 
be  done,  and  that  the  notes  so  withdrawn  by  the  banks  be  replaced  by  the 
Government  with  legal  tender  currency. — Ohio  State  Democratic  platform, 

1874- 

1875  :  That  the  policy  already  initiated  by  the  Republican  party  of  abolish 
ing  the  legal  tender  and  giving  national  banks  the  power  to  furnish  all  the 
currency  will  increase  the  power  of  an  already  dangerous  monopoly  and  the 
enormous  burden  now  oppressing  the  people,  without  any  corresponding 
advantage,  and  that  we  oppose  the  policy  and  demand  that  all  the  national 
bank  circulation  be  promptly  and  permanently  retired,  and  legal  tenders  be 
issued  in  their  place.  *  *  *  No  paper  currency  except  such  as  may  be  issued 
directly  by  and  upon  the  faith  of  the  General  Government. 

1876:  The  gradual  but  early  substitution  of  legal  tender  for  national  bank 
notes.  *  *  *  The  issue  by  the  General  Government  alone  of  all  the  circu 
lating  medium,  whether  paper  or  metallic. 

1877  :  We  favor  the  retention  of  greenback  currency  as  the  best  paper  money 
we  have  ever  had,  and  declare  against  any  further  contraction.  *  *  *  We 
favor  the  issue  by  the  General  Government  alone  of  all  circulating'  mediums, 
whether  paper  or  metallic,  to  be  always  of  equal  tender  and  interconvertible. 

1878:  The  gradual  substitution  of  United  States  legal  tender  paper  for 
national  bank  notes  and  its  permanent  establishment  as  the  sole  paper  money  of 
the  country.  *  *  *  No  further  increase  in  the  bonded  debt  and  no  further 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  165 

sale  of  bonds  for  the  purchase  of  coin  for  resumption  purposes,  but  the  gradual 
extinction  of  the  public  debt. 

1879:  The  issue  of  money  in  any  form  and  the  regulation  thereof  belong  to 
the  General  Government  alone,  and  ought  not  to  be  delegated  or  intrusted 
to  individuals  or  corporations.  We  oppose  the  perpetuation  of  the  present 
national  banking  system  as  a  means  of  control  over  the  currency  of  the  coun 
try,  and  demand  the  gradual  substitution  of  Treasury  notes  for  national  bank 
currency. 

OREGON. 

1875 :  The  institution  of  the  system  of  national  banks  was  a  fraud  upon  the 
country  and  injustice  upon  the  laboring  classes,  and  we  demand  such  pru 
dent  legislation  as  will  gradually  bring  this  vicious  system  to  a  close;  that  all 
currency  which  may  be  issued  shall  be  convertible  into  coin  upon  demand  and 
be  issued  directly  by  the  Government. 

That  the  gratuity  of  nearly  $24,000,000  now  paid  to  national  banks  by  the 
Government  is  simply  levying  tribute  upon  the  people  for  the  benefit  of  the 
capitalists.  We,  therefore,  favor  the  repeal  of  the  law  under  which  they  were 
established  and  the  direct  issue  by  the  Government  of  currency,  receivable  for 
all  public  dues,  sufficient  to  supply  the  place  of  the  present  bank-note  circulation. 
— Oregon  State  Democratic  platform,  1878. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

1875 :  That  the  policy  already  indicated  by  the  Republican  party  of  abolish 
ing  legal  tenders  and  giving  the  national  banks  the  power  to  furnish  all  the 
currency  will  increase  the  power  of  an  already  dangerous  monopoly  and  the 
enormous  burden  now  oppressing  the  people  without  compensating  advan 
tage,  and  that  all  the  national  bank  circulation  be  promptly  and  permanently 
retired  and  full  legal  tenders  be  issued  in  their  place. 

1875  •  The  honest  payment  of  our  just  debts  and  the  sacred  preservation  of 
the  public  faith. 

1876:     The  honest  payment  of  the  public  debt. 

1878 :  Gold,  silver  and  United  States  legal  tender  notes  at  par  therewith  are 
a  just  basis  for  paper  circulation. 

NEW  YORK. 


1874 :     Honest  payment  of  the  public  debt  in  coin. 


TENNESSEE. 

That  we  favor  the  abolition  of  the  present  odious  national  bank  system  and 
the  payment  of  the  bonds  of  the  Government  by  issuance  of  its  non-interest-bear 
ing  notes,  according  to  the  contract  expressed  and  implied  at  the  time  of  the 
creation  of  such  obligations. — Tennessee  Democratic  State  platform,  1874. 

The  substitution  of  Treasury  notes  for  national  bank  currency  at  the  ear 
liest  moment  practicable. — Tennessee  State  Democratic  platform,  1876. 

1878 :  The  odious  national  banking  act  be  repealed  and  greenbacks  be  sub 
stituted  for  the  circulation  of  national  banks.  *  *  *  That  no  more  interest- 
bearing  bonds  be  issued;  that  all  loans  required  by  the  Government  be  raised 
by  the  issuance  of  non-interest-bearing  Treasury  notes. 

TEXAS. 

1878:  We  favor  one  currency  for  the  Government  and  the  people,  the 
laborer  and  the  officeholder,  the  pensioner  and  the  soldier,  the  producer  and  the 
bondholder.  *  *  *  The  substitution  of  United  States  legal  tender  for 
national  bank  notes  and  its  permanent  re-establishment  as  the  sole  paper  money 
of  the  country. 

No  further  increase  in  the  bonded  debt;  no  further  sale  of  bonds  for  the 
purchase  of  coin  for  redemption  purposes,  but  a  gradual  reduction  of  the  public 
debt  by  payment  according  to  the  original  contract  by  which  it  was  created. 

VERMONT. 

1878:  The  honest  payment  of  the  public  debt  in  such  currency  as  its  terms 
imply,  and  the  preservation  of  the  public  faith. 


166  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

One  currency  for  all.  We  oppose  the  present  national  banking  system  and 
recommend  the  gradual  substitution  of  greenbacks  for  national  bank  bills. 

WISCONSIN. 

1887:  Declares  its  opposition  to  a  longer  continuance  of  the  national  bank 
currency  and  demands  that  the  Government  furnish  its  own  notes  in  the  place 
thereof. 

UTTERANCES   OF  EMINENT  STATESMEN. 

These  are  the  words  of  Mr.  Jefferson: 

"  It  is  a  wise  rule  and  should  be  fundamental  in  a  government  disposed  to 
cherish  its  credit,  but  at  the  same  time  to  restrain  the  use  of  it  within  the 
limits  of  its  faculties,  '  never  to  borrow  a  dollar  without  laying  a  tax  on  the 
same  instant  for  paying  the  interest  annually,  and  the  principal  within  a  given 
term;  and  to  consider  that  tax  as  pledged  to  the  creditors  on  the  public  faith.' 
On  such  a  pledge  as  this,  sacredly  observed,  a  government  may  always  command, 
on  a  reasonable  interest,  all  the  lendable  money  of  their  citizens,  while  the  neces- 
Mty  of  equivalent  tax  is  a  salutary  warning  to  them  and  their  constituents  against 
oppression,  bankruptcy,  and  its  inevitable  consequence,  revolution.  But  the  term 
of  redemption  must  be  moderate  and  at  any  rate  within  the  limits  of  their  right 
ful  powers.  But  what  limits,  it  will  be  asked,  does  this  prescribe  to  their  pow 
ers?  What  is  to  hinder  them  from  creating  a  perpetual  debt?  The  laws  of 
nature,  I  answer.  The  earth  belongs  to  the  living,  not  to  the  dead.  The  will  and 
the  power  of  man  expire  with  his  life,  by  nature's  law." 


"  In  seeking,  then,  for  an  ultimate  term  for  the  redemption  of  our  debts, 
let  us  rally  to  this  principle  and  provide  for  their  payment  within  the  term  of 
nineteen  years  at  the  furthest."  (Volume  6,  pages  136,  137.) 

"  We  must  raise,  then,  ourselves  the  money  for  this  war,  either  by  taxes 
within  the  year,  or  by  loans ;  and  if  by  loans,  we  must  repay  them  ourselves, 
proscribing  forever  the  English  practice  of  perpetual  funding,  the  ruinous  con 
sequences  of  which,  putting  right  out  of  the  question,  should  be  a  sufficient  warn 
ing  to  a  considerate  nation  to  avoid  the  example."  (Volume  6,  page  197.) 

"  At  the  time  we  were  funding  our  national  debt,  we  heard  much  about  a 
'public  debt  being  a  public  blessing ;'  that  the  stock  representing  it  was  a  creation 
of  active  capital  for  the  aliment  of  commerce,  manufactures,  and  agriculture. 
This  paradox  was  well  adapted  to  the  minds  of  believers  in  dreams,  and  the 
gulls  of  that  size  entered  bona  fide  into  it."  (Volume  6,  page  239.) 

"  The  misfortune  is  that  in  the  meantime  we  shall  plunge  ourselves  in  unex- 
tinguishable  debt,  and  entail  on  our  posterity  an  inheritance  of  eternal  taxes, 
which  will  bring  our  Government  and  people  into  the  condition  of  those  of 
England,  a  nation  of  pikes  and  gudgeons,  the  latter  bred  merely  as  food  for  the 
former."  (Volume  6,  page  409.) 

"Funding  I  consider  as  limited,  rightfully,  to  a  redemption  of  the  debt 
within  the  lives  of  a  majority  of  the  generation  contracting  it;  every  generation 
coming  equally,  by  the  laws  of  the  Creator  of  the  world,  to  the  free  possession 
of  the  earth  He  made  for  their  subsistence,  unencumbered  by  their  predeces 
sors,  who,  like  them,  were  but  tenants  for  life." 


"And  I  sincerely  believe,  with  you,  that  banking  establishments  are  more 
dangerous  than  standing  armies ;  and  that  the  principle  of  spending  money  to  be 
paid  by  posterity,  under  the  name  of  funding,  is  but  swindling  futurity  on  a 
large  scale."  (Volume  6,  pages  605-608.) 

"  No  earthly  consideration  could  induce  my  consent  to  contract  such  a  debt 
as  England  has  by  her  wars  for  commerce,  to  reduce  our  citizens  by  taxes  to 
such  wretchedness  as  that,  laboring  sixteen  of  the  twenty-four  hours,  they  are 
still  unable  to  afford  themselves  bread,  or  barely  to  earn  as  much  oatmeal  or 
potatoes  as  will  keep  soul  and  body  together."  (Volume  7,  page  7.) 
******* 

"I  am  not  among  those  who  fear  the  people.  They  and  not  the  rich  are 
our  dependence  for  continued  freedom.  And  to  preserve  their  independence 
we  must  not  let  our  rulers  load  us  with  perpetual  debt.  We  must  make  our 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  167 

election  between  economy  and  liberty  or  profusion  and  servitude.  If  we  run 
into  such  debts  as  that  we  must  be  taxed  in  our  meat  and  in  our  drink,  in 
our  necessaries  and  our  comforts,  in  our  labors  and  our  amusements,  for  our 
callings  and  our  creeds,  as  the  people  of  England  are;  our  people,  like  them, 
must  come  to  labor  sixteen  hours  in  the  twenty-four,  give  the  earnings  of  fif 
teen  of  these  to  the  Government  for  their  debts  and  daily  expenses;  and  the 
sixteenth  being  insufficient  to  afford  us  bread,  we  must  live,  as  they  now  do, 
on  oatmeal  and  potatoes ;  have  no  time  to  think,  no  means  of  calling  the  mis- 
managers  to  account,  but  be  glad  to  obtain  subsistence  by  hiring  ourselves  to 
rivet  their  chains  on  the  necks  of  our  fellow  sufferers.  Our  landholders,  too, 
like  theirs,  retaining  indeed  the  title  and  stewardship  of  estates  called  theirs, 
but  held  in  trust  for  the  Treasury,  must  wander,  like  theirs,  in  foreign  coun 
tries,  and  be  contented  with  penury,  obscurity,  exile,  and  the  glory  of  the 
nation.  This  example  reads  to  us  the  salutary  lesson  that  private  fortunes 
are  destroyed  by  public  as  well  as  by  private  extravagance.  And  this  is  the 
tendency  of  all  known  governments.  A  departure  from  principle  in  one 
instance  becomes  a  precedent  for  a  second,  that  second  for  a  third,  and  so  on 
till  the  bulk  of  the  society  is  reduced  to  be  mere  automations  of  misery,  to  have 
no  sensibilities  left  but  for  sinning  and  suffering.  Then  begins,  indeed,  the 
bellum  omnium  in  omnia,  which  some  philosophers  observing  to  be  so  gen 
eral  in  this  world,  have  mistaken  it  for  the  natural  instead  of  the  abusive 
state  of  man.  And  the  forehorse  of  this  frightful  team  is  public  debt.  Tax 
ation  follows  that,  and  in  its  turn  wretchedness  and  oppression."  (Volume  7, 
page  14.) 

******* 

"  I  place  economy  among  the  first  and  most  important  of  republican  virtues, 
and  public  debt  as  the  greatest  of  the  dangers  to  be  feared.  We  see  in  Eng 
land  the  consequences  of  the  want  of  it — their  laborers  reduced  to  live  on  a 
penny  in  the  shilling  of  their  earnings,  to  give  up  bread,  and  resort  to  oat 
meal  and  potatoes  fo.r  food;  and  their  landholders  exiling  themselves  to  live 
in  penury  and  obscurity  abroad,  because  at  home  the  Government  must  have 
all  the  clear  profits  of  their  land.  In  fact,  they  see  the  fee  simple  of  the  island 
transferred  to  the  public  creditors,  all  its  profits  going  to  them  for  the  inter 
est  of  their  debts.  Our  laborers  and  landholders  must  come  to  this  also  unless 
they  serenely  adhere  to  the  economy  you  recommend."  (Volume  7,  page  19.) 

"  The  incorporation  of  a  bank  and  the  powers  assumed  by  this  bill  have 
not,  in  my  opinion,  been  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution." — 
Opinion  against  the  constitutionality  of  a  national  bank,  February  15,  1791, 
volume  7,  page  556. 

"  The  bank  filled  and  overflowed  in  the  moment  it  was  opened.  Instead  of 
20,000  shares  24,000  were  offered  and  a  great  many  unpresented  who  had  not 
suspected  that  so  much  haste  was  necessary.  Thus  it  is  that  we  shall  be  pay 
ing  13  per  cent,  per  annum  for  eight  millions  of  paper  money,  instead  of  hav 
ing  that  circulation  of  gold  and  silver  for  nothing.  Experience  has  proved 
to  us  that  a  dollar  of  silver  disappears  for  every  dollar  of  paper  emitted;  and 
for  the  paper  emitted  from  the  bank  7  per  cent,  profits  will  be  received  by 
the  subscribers  for  it  as  bank  paper  (according  to  the  last  division  of  profits 
by  the  Philadelphia  Bank,)  and  6  per  cent,  on  the  public  paper  of  which  it  is 
the  representative." — Letter  to  Colonel  Monroe,  July,  10,  1791,  volume  3,  page 
2f8. 

"  Our  public  credit  is  good,  but  the  abundance  of  paper  has  produced  a 
spirit  of  gambling  in  the  funds,  which  has  laid  up  our  ships  at  the  wharves 
as  too  slow  instruments  of  profit,  and  has  even  disarmed  the  hand  of  the 
tailor  of  his  needle  and  thimble.  They  say  the  evil  will  cure  itself.  I  wish  it 
may,  but  I  have  rarely  seen  a  gamester  cured,  even  by  the  disasters  of  his 
vocation." — Letter  to  Gouverneur  Morris,  August  30,  1791,  volume  3,  page  290. 

"  You  will  see  further  that  we  are  completely  saddled  and  bridled,  and  that 
the  bank  is  so  firmly  mounted  on  us  that  we  must  go  where  they  will  guide. 


168  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

They  openly  publish  a  resolution  that,  the  national  property  being  increased 
in  value,  they  must  by  an  increase  of  circulating  medium  furnish  an  adequate 
representation  of  it,  and  by  further  additions  of  active  capital  promote  the 
enterprises  of  our  merchants." — Letter  to  Colonel  Munroe,  June  12,  1796,  vol 
ume  4,  page  140. 

"  I  wish  it  were  possible  to  obtain  a  single  amendment  to  our  Constitution. 
I  would  be  willing  to  depend  on  that  alone  for  the  redemption  of  the  adminis 
tration  of  our  Government  to  the  genuine  principles  of  its  Constitution;  I 
mean  an  additional  article,  taking  from  the  Federal  Government  the  power  of 
borrowing.  I  now  deny  their  power  of  making  paper  money  or  anything  else 
a  legal  tender." — Letter  to  John  Taylor,  November  26,  1798,  volume  4,  page 
260. 

"  The  monopoly  of  a  single  bank  is  certainly  an  evil.  The  multiplication 
of  them  was  intended  to  cure  it;  but  it  multiplied  an  influence  of  the  same 
character  with  the  first,  and  completed  the  supplanting  the  precious  metals 
by  a  paper  circulation."— Letter  to  Mr.  Gallatin,  June  19,  1802,  volume  4, 
page  440. 

"  From  the  passage  in  the  letter  of  the  president  [of  the  United  States 
Bank]  I  observe  an  idea  of  establishing  a  branch  bank  of  the  United  States  in 
New  Orleans.  This  institution  is  one  of  the  most  deadly  hostility  existing  against 
the  principles  and  form:  of  our  Constitution.  The  nation  is  at  this  time  so 
strong  and  united  in  its  sentiments  that  it  can  not  be  shaken  at  this  moment. 
But  suppose  a  series  of  untoward  events  should  occur,  sufficient  to  bring  into 
doubt  the  competency  of  a  republican  government  to  meet  a  crisis  of  great 
danger  to  unhinge  the  confidence  of  the  people  in  the  public  functionaries, 
an  institution  like  this,  penetrating  by  its  branches  every  part  of  the  Union, 
acting  by  command  and  in  phalanx,  may  in  a  critical  moment  upset  the  Gov 
ernment." — Letter  to  Mr.  Gallatin,  December  13,  1803,  volume  4,  page  519. 

"  That  we  are  overdone  with  banking  institutions,  which  have  banished  the 
precious  /,metals  and  substituted  a  more  fluctuating  and  unsafe  medium ; 
that  these  have  withdrawn  capital  from  useful  improvements  and  employ 
ments  to  nourish  idleness;  that  the  wars  of  the  world  have  swollen  our  com 
merce  beyond  the  wholesome  limits  of  exchanging  our  own  productions  for 
our  own  wants,  and  that,  for  the  emolument  of  a  small  proportion  of  our 
society,  who  prefer  these  demoralizing  pursuits  to  labors  useful  to  the 
whole,  the  peace  of  the  whole  is  endangered  and  all  our  present  difficulties 
produced,  more  easily  to  be  deplored  than  remedied." — Letter  to  Abbe  Sali- 
mankis,  March  14,  1810,  volume  5,  page  516. 

"  One  of  the  great  advantages  of  specie  as  a  medium  is  that,  being  of  uni 
versal  value,  it  will  keep  itself  at  a  general  level,  flowing  out  from  where  it 
is  too  high  into  parts  where  it  is  lower.  Whereas,  if  the  medium  be  of  local 
Value  only,  as  paper  money,  if  too  little,  indeed,  gold  and  silver  will  flow  in 
to  supply  the  deficiency;  but  if  too  much,  it  accumulates,  banishes  the  gold 
and  silver  not  locked  up  in  vaults  and  hoards,  and  depreciates  itself — that  is 
to  say,  its  proportion  to  the  annual  produce  of  industry  beinn-  raised,  more 
of  it  is  required  to  represent  any  particular  article  of  produce  than  in  the 
other  countries.  And  to  fill  up  the  measure  of  blessing,  instead  of  paying, 
they  receive  an  interest  on  what  they  owe  from  those  to  whom  they  owe;  for 
all  the  notes,  or  evidences  of  what  they  owe,  which  we  see  in  circulation, 
have  been  lent  to  somebody  on  an  interest  which  is  levied  again  on  us  through 
the  medium  of  commerce." — Letter  to  John  W.  Eppes,  November  6,  1813,  vol 
ume  6,  page  239. 

"Everything  predicted  by  the  enemies  of  banks  in  the  beginning  is  now 
coming  to  pass.  We  are  to  be  ruined  now  by  the  deluge  of  bank  paper,  as  we 
were  formerly  by  the  old  Continental  paper.  It  is  cruel  that  such  revolutions 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  169 

in  private  fortunes  should  be  at  the  mercy  of  avaricious  adventurers,  who 
instead  of  employing  their  capital,  if  any  they  have,  in  manufactures,  com 
merce,  or  other  useful  pursuits,  make  it  an  instrument  to  burden  all  the 
interchanges  of  property  with  their  swindling  profits,  profits  which  are  the 
price  of  no  useful  industry  of  theirs.  *  *  *  I  am  an  enemy  to  all  banks 
discounting  bills  or  notes  for  anything  but  coin." — Letter  to  Dr.  Thomas 
Cooper,  January  16,  1814,  volume  6,  page  295. 


"  Until  the  gigantic  banking  propositions  of  this  winter  had  made  their 
appearance  in  the  different  legislatures,  I  had  hoped  that  the  evil  might  still  be 
checked;  but  I  see  now  that  it  is  desperate,  and  that  we  must  fold  our  arms 
and  go  to  the  bottom  with  the  ship."— Letter  to  Joseph  C.  Cabell,  esq.,  January 
17,  1814,  volume  6,  page  300. 


"I  have  ever  been  the  enemy  of  banks,  not  of  those  discounting  for  cash, 
but  of  those  foisting  their  own  paper  into  circulation,  and  thus  banishing  our 
cash.  My  zeal  against  those  institutions  was  so  warm  and  open  at  the  estab 
lishment  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  that  I  was  derided  as  a  maniac  by 
the  tribe  of  bank  mongers  who  were  seeking  to  filch  from  the  public  their 
swindling  and  barren  gains."— Letter  to  President  Adams,  January  24,  1814, 
volume  6,  page  305. 


"  From  the  establishment  of  the  United  States  Bank  to  this  day  I  have 
preached  against  this  system  but  have  been  sensible  no  cure  could  be  hoped 
t>ut  in  the  catastrophe  now  happening.  The  remedy  was  to  let  banks  drop 
graduation  at  the  expiration  ^f  their  charters,  and  for  the  State  governments 
to  relinquish  the  power  of  establishing  others.  This  would  not,  as  it  should 
not,  have  given  the  power  of  establishing  them  to  Congress.  But  Congress 
could  then  have  issued  Treasury  notes  payable  within  a  fixed  period,  and 
founded  on  a  specific  tax,  the  proceeds  of  which,  as  they  came  in,  should  be 
exchangeable  for  the  notes  of  that  particular  emission  only."— Letter  to  Thomas 
Cooper,  csq.,  September  10,  1814,  volume  6,  page  381. 


"Let  us  be  allured  by  no  objects  of  banks,  public  or  private,  or  ephemeral 
expedients,  which,  enabling  us  to  gasp  and  flounder  a  little  longer,  only 
increase  by  protracting  the  agonies  of  death." — Letter  to  James  Monroe,  October 
16,  1814,  volume  6,  page  395. 


"  The  fatal  possession  of  the  whole  circulating  medium  by  our  banks,  the 
excess  of  those  institutions,  and  their  present  discredit  cause  all  our  difficul 
ties.  Treasury  notes  of  small  as  well  as  high  denomination,  bottomed  on  a 
tax  which  would  redeem  them  in  ten  years,  would  place  at  our  disposal  the 
whole  circulating  medium  of  the  United  States ;  a  fund  of  credit  sufficient  to 
carry  us  through  any  probable  length  of  war." — Letter  to  his  excellency  Mr. 
Crawford,  February  n,  1815,  volume  6,  page  419. 


"  The  Government  is  now  issuing  Treasury  notes  for  circulation,  bottomed 
on  solid  funds,  and  bearing  interest.  The  banking  confederacy  (and  the 
merchants  bound  to  them  by  their  debts)  will  endeavor  to  crush  the  credit 
of  these  notes,  but  the  country  is  eager  for  them,  as  something  they  can  trust 
to,  and  so  soon  as  a  convenient  quantity  of  them  can  get  into  circulation,  the 
bank  notes  die." — Letter  to  Jean  Batiste  Say,  March  2,  1815,  volume  6,  page  434. 

"  Their  merchants  (the  English)  established  among  us,  the  bonds  by  which 
our  own  are  chained  to  their  feet,  and  the  banking  combination  interwoven 
with  the  whole,  have  shown  the  extent  of  their  control,  even  during  a  war 
with  her.  They  are  the  workers  of  all  the  embarrassments  our  finances  have 

12 


170  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

experienced  during  the  war." — Letter  to   Caesar  A.   Rodney,  March,   16,   1815, 
volume  6,  page  449. 

"  Like  a  dropsical  man  calling  out  for  water,  water,  our  deluded  citizens  are 
clamoring  for  more  banks,  more  banks.  The  American  mind  is  now  in  the 
state  of  fever  which  the  world  has  so  often  seen  in  the  history  of  other  nations. 
We  are  under  the  bank  bubble,  as  England  was  under  the  South  Sea  bubble, 
France  under  the  Mississippi  bubble,  and  as  every  nation  is  liable  to  be  under 
whatever  bubble,  design,  or  delusion  may  puff  up  in  moments  when  off  their 
guard.  We  are  now  taught  to  believe  that  legerdemain  tricks  upon  paper 
can  produce  as  solid  wealth  as  hard  labor  in  the  earth.  It  is  vain  for  common 
sense  to  urge  that  nothing  can  produce  nothing ;  that  it  is  an  idle  dream  to 
believe  in  a  philosopher's  stone  which  is  to  turn  everything  into  gold,  and  to 
redeem  man  from  the  original  sentence  of  his  Maker,  '  In  the  sweat  of  his 
brow  shall  he  eat  his  bread.'  " — Letter  to  Colonel  Yancey,  January  6,  1816,  vol 
ume  6,  page  515. 

"  The  metallic  medium  of  which  we  should  be  possessed  at  the  commence 
ment  of  a  war  would  be  a  sufficient  fund  for  all  the  loans  we  should  need 
through  its  continuance;  and  if  the  national  bills  issued  be  bottomed  (as  is 
indispensable)  on  pledges  of  specific  taxes  for  their  redemption  within  certain 
and  moderate  epochs,  and  be  of  proper  denominations  for  circulation,  no 
interest  on  them  would  be  necessary  or  just,  because  they  would  answer  to 
everyone  the  purposes  of  the  metallic  money  withdrawn  and  replaced  by 
them." — Letter  to  William  H.  Crawford,  June  20,  1816,  volume  7,  page  8. 

"  The  bank  mania  is  one  of  the  most  threatening  of  these  imitations.  It  is 
raising  up  a  moneyed  aristocracy  in  our  country  which  has  already  set  the 
Government  at  defiance  and  although  forced  at  length  to  yield  a  little  on 
the  first  essay  of  their  strength,  their  principles  are  unyielded  and  unyield 
ing.  These  have  taken  deep  root  in  the  hearts  of  that  class  from  which  our 
legislators  are  drawn,  and  the  sop  to  Cerberus  from  fable  has  become  his 
tory.  Their  principles  lay  hold  of  the  good,  their  pelf  of  the  bad,  and  thus 
those  whom  the  Constitution  had  placed  as  guards  to  its  portals  are  sophis 
ticated  or  suborned  from  their  duties.  That  paper  money  has  some  advan 
tages  is  admitted.  But  that  its  abuses  also  are  inevitable,  and  by  breaking 
up  the  measure  of  value  makes  a  lottery  of  all  private  property,  can  not  be 
denied.  Shall  we  ever  be  able  to  put  a  constitutional  veto  upon  it?" — Letter 
to  Dr.  Josephus  B.  Stuart,  May  10,  1817,  volume  7,  page  64. 

"  There  is,  indeed,  one  evil  which  awakens  me  at  times,  because  it  jostles 
me  at  every  turn.  It  is  that  we  have  now  no  measure  of  value." — Letter  to 
Nathaniel  M  aeon,  esq.,  January  12,  1819,  volume  7,  page  in. 

"  The  evils  of  this  deluge  of  paper  money  are  not  to  be  removed  until  our 
citizens  are  generally  and  radically  instructed  in  their  cause  and  consequences, 
and  silence  by  their  authority  the  interested  clamors  and  sophistry  of  specu 
lating,  shaving,  and  banking  institutions." — Letter  to  Mr.  Adams,  March  21, 
1819,  volume  7,  page  115. 

"  The  paper  bubble  is  then  burst.  This  is  what  you  and  I  and  every  reason 
able  man,  seduced  by  no  obliquity  of  mind  or  interest,  have  long  foreseen,  yet 
its  disastrous  effects  are  not  the  less  for  having  been  foreseen.  We  are  labor 
ing  under  a  dropsical  fullness  of  circulating  medium.  Nearly  all  of  it  is  now 
called  in  by  the  banks,  who  have  the  regulation  of  the  safety  valves  of  our  for 
tunes,  and  who  condense  and  explode  them  at  their  will.  Lands  in  this  State 
can  not  now  be  sold  for  a  year's  rent." — Letter  to  J.  Adams,  esq.,  November 
7,  1819,  volume  7,  page  142. 

"  If  we  suffer  the  moral  of  the  present  lesson  to  pass  away  without  improve 
ment  by  the  eternal  suppression  of  bank  paper,  then,  indeed,  is  the  condition 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  171 

of  our  country  desperate,  until  the  slow  advance  of  public  instruction  shall 
give  to  our  functionaries  the  wisdom  of  their  station." — Letter  to  Mr.  Rives, 
November  28,  1819,  volume  7,  page  145. 


"  The  plethory  of  circulating  medium  which  raised  the  prices  of  everything 
to  several  times  their  ordinary  and  standard  value,  in  which  state  of  things 
many  and  heavy  debts  were  contracted,  and  the  sudden  withdrawing  too 
great  a  proportion  of  that  medium,  and  reduction  of  prices  far  below  that 
standard,  constitute  the  disease  under  which  we  are  now  laboring  and  which 
must  end  in  a  general  revolution  of  property  if  some  remedy  is  not  applied." — 
Letter  to  Mr.  Rives,  November  28,  1819,  volume  7,  page  146. 


"  Interdict  forever,  to  both  the  State  and  National  Governments,  the  power 
of  establishing  any  paper  bank,  for  without  this  interdiction  we  shall  have 
the  same  ebbs  and  flows  of  medium  and  the  same  revolutions  of  property  to 
go  through  every  twenty  or  thirty  years." — Letter  to  Mr.  Rives,  November  28, 
1819,  volume  7,  page  147. 


"The  State  is  in  a  condition  of  unparalleled  distress.  The  sudden  reduc 
tion  of  a  circulating  medium  from  a  plethory  to  all  but  annihilation  is  pro 
ducing  an  entire  revolution  of  fortune." — Letter  to  H.  Nelson,  esq.,  March  12, 
1820,  volume  7,  page  151. 


"  I  should  put  down  all  banks,  admit  none  but  a  metallic  circulation,  that 
will  take  its  proper  level  with  the  like  circulation  in  other  countries,  and 
then  our  manufacturers  may  work  in  fair  competition  with  those  of  other 
countries,  and  the  import  duties  which  the  Government  may  lay  for  the 
purposes  of  revenue  will  so  far  place  them  above  equal  competition." — Letter 
to  Mr.  Pinckney,  September  30,  1820,  volume  7,  page  180. 


The  expansion  of  the  currency  by  the  issue  of  paper  in  a  period  of  prosper 
ity  will  inevitably  be  succeeded  by  its  contraction  in  periods  of  adversity. — 
W.  H.  Crawford. 


The  great  object  now  in  view  is  to  terminate  forever  the  evil  of  the  present 
system,  and  to  place  the  currency  on  a  foundation  so  stable  that  it  can  not 
again  be  shaken.  If  a  broad  and  sure  foundation  of  gold  and  silver  is  provided 
for  our  system  of  paper  credits  we  need  not  hereafter  apprehend  those  alter 
nate  seasons  of  abundance  and  scarcity  of  money  suddenly  succeeding  each 
other,  which  have  so  far  marked  our  history  and  irreparably  injured  so  many 
of  our  citizens. — Report  of  R.  B.  Taney,  Secretary  of  Treasury,  April  15,  1834. 


Proneness  to  excessive  issues  has  ever  been  the  vice  of  the  banking  system, 
a  vice  as  prominent  in  national  as  in  State  institutions.  This  propensity  is  as 
subservient  to  the  advancement  of  private  interests  in  the  one  as  in  the 
other;  and  those  who  direct  them  both,  being  principally  guided  by  the  same 
views  and  influenced  by  the  same  motives,  will  be  equally  ready  to  stimulate 
to  extravagance  of  'enterprise  by  improvidence  of  credit.- — President  Van 
Buren's  message,  September  4,  1837. 


The  history  of  trade  in  the  United  States  for  the  last  three  or  four  years 
affords  the  most  convincing  evidence  that  our  present  condition  is  chiefly  to 
be  attributed  to  overaction  in  all  the  departments  of  business,  an  overaction 
deriving,  perhaps,  its  first  impulse  from  antecedent  causes,  but  stimulated 
to  its  destructive  consequences  by  excessive  issues  of  bank  paper  and  by 


172  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

other  facilities   for  the  acquisition  and  enlargement  of  credit. — President  Van 
Buren's  message,  September  4,   1837. 

The  limited  influence  of  a  national  bank  in  averting  derangement  in  the 
exchanges  of  the  country,  or  in  compelling  the  resumption  of  specie  payments, 
is  now  not  less  apparent  than  its  tendency  to  increase  inordinate  speculation 
by  sudden  expansions  and  contractions;  its  disposition  to  create  panic  and 
embarrassment  for  the  promotion  of  its  own  designs;  its  interference  with 
politics,  and  its  far  greater  power  for  evil  than  for  good  either  in  regard  to 
the  local  institutions  of  the  operations  of  a  government  itself.  What  was  in 
these  respects,  but  apprehension  or  opinion  when  a  national  bank  was  first 
established  now  stands  confirmed  by  humiliating  experience.  The  scenes 
through  which  we  have  passed  conclusively  prove  how  little  our  commerce, 
agriculture,  manufactures,  or  finances  require  such  an  institution,  and  what 
dangers  are  attendant  on  its  power — a  power,  I  trust,  never  to  be  conferred 
by  the  American  people  upon  their  Government,  and  still  less  upon  indi 
viduals  not  responsible  to  them  for  its  unavoidable  abuses. — President  Van 
Buren's  second  annual  message,  December  4,  1838. 

The  experiment  has  been  tried  and  local  paper  has  failed  as  a  national  cur 
rency,  and  out  of  that  failure  arose  the  second  United  States  bank.  It  will 
fail  again  and  again,  and  forever.  .  There  is  no  safety  for  the  Federal  reve 
nues  but  in  the  total  exclusion  of  local  paper,  and  that  from  every  branch  of 
the  revenues — customs,  lands,  and  post  office.  There  is  no  safety  for  the 
national  finances  but  in  the  constitutional  medium  of  gold  and  silver.  After 
forty  years'  wandering  in  the  wilderness  of  paper  money  we  have  approached 
the  confines  of  the  constitutional  medium. — Benton,  December  14,  1836. 

The  evils  of  a  redundant  paper  circulation  are  now  manifest  to  every  eye. 
It  alternately  raises  and  sinks  the  value  of  every  man's  property.  It  makes  a 
beggar  of  the  man  to-morrow  who  is  indulging  in  dreams  of  wealth  to-day. 
It  converts  the  business  of  society  into  a  mere  lottery,  while  those  who  dis 
tribute  the  prizes  are  wholly  irresponsible  to  the  people.  When  the  collapse 
comes,  as  come  it  must,  it  casts  laborers  out  of  employment,  crushes  manu 
facturers  and  merchants,  and  ruins  thousands  of  honest  and  industrious  citizens. 
Shall  we  then,  by  our  policy,  any  longer  contribute  to  such  fatal  results?  That 
is  the  question. — Buchanan.  September  29,  1837. 

For  myself,  I  am  opposed  to  investing  in  banks  the  power  of  manufactur 
ing  a  paper  Currency.  This  power  of  creating  a  currency  for  a  nation  is 
one  of  the  highest  and  most  important  attributes  of  a  sovereign  power,  and 
more  deeply  affects  all  the  diversified  interests  of  society  that  the  excercise 
of  any  other  power  whatever.  It  is  more  important  than  coining  money, 
for  that  must  be  preceded  by  the  purchase  of  the  bullion ;  but  here  is  a 
power  to  manufacture  paper  money  at  pleasure,  to  constitute  the  currency 
of  a  State  or  nation,  a  power  intrusted  to  the  irresponsible  directory  of  a 
bank,  acting  in  secret,  and  whose  chief  interest  is  to  abuse  their  power.  In 
proportion  as  a  bank  increases  in  currency  are  its  dividends  and  profits  aug 
mented,  and  hence  the  stimulus  to  overissues  is  irresistible,  and  especially  is 
this  the  case  where,  as  we  have  seen  by  the  evidence  before  quoted,  the  very 
directors  which  manufacture  the  paper  loan  out,  as  a  general  rule,  more  than 
one-fourth  of  it  to  themselves.  This  power,  then,  of  issuing  their  paper 
as  money  is  truly  fearful,  and  when  united  with  the  power  of  loaning  at 
pleasure,  in  secret  conclave,  and  to  whom  and  for  what  purpose  the  bank  direqt- 
ory  may  think  proper,  and  of  recalling  it  at  pleasure,  and  of  contracting  and 
expanding  as  suits  their  caprice,  is  a  power  which  few  European  despots  would 
dare  to  exercise,  and  is  utterly  incompatible  with  the  fundamental  principles 
of  a  free  government. — From  the  speech  of  Robert  J.  Walker  in  the  Senate, 
January  21,  1840. 

Allow  me,  moreover,  to  hope  that  it  will  be  a  favorite  policy  with  you  not 
merely  to  secure  a  payment  of  the  interest  of  the  debt  funded,  but  as  far  and 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  173 

as  fast  as  the  growing  resources  of  the  country  will  permit  to  exonerate  it  of 
the  principal  itself.  The  appropriations  you  have  made  of  the  Western  lands 
explain  your  disposition  on  this  subject,  and  I  am  persuaded  that  the  sooner 
that  valuable  fund  can  be  made  to  contribute,  along  with  other  means,  to  the 
actual  reduction  of  the  public  debt,  the  more  salutary  will  the  measure  be  to 
every  public  interest,  as  well  as  the  more  satisfactory  to  our  constituents. — 
Washington's  second  annual  address  to  Congress,  December  8,  1790.  (Williams' 
Presidents'  Messages,  volume  i,  page  38.) 


No  pecuniary  consideration  is  more  urgent  than  the  regular  redemption 
and  discharge  of  the  public  debt.  On  none  can  delay  be  more  injurious  or  an 
economy  of  time  be  more  valuable. — Washington's  fifth  annual  address  to  Con 
gress,  December  3,  1793.  (Williams'  Presidents'  Messages,  volume  i,  page  49.) 

GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES:  The  time  which  has 
elapsed  since  the  commencement  of  our  fiscal  measures  has  developed  our 
pecuniary  resources  so  as  to  open  the  way  for  a  definitive  plan  for  the  redemp 
tion  of  the  public  debt.  It  is  believed  that  the  result  is  such  as  to  encourage 
Congress  to  consummate  this  work  without  delay.  Nothing  can  more  promote 
the  permanent  welfare  of  the  nation  and  nothing  would  be  more  grateful  to 
our  constituents.  Indeed,  whatever  is  unfinished  of  our  system  of  public  credit 
can  not  be  benefited  by  procrastination ;  and  as  far  as  may  be  practicable  we 
ought  to  place  that  credit  on  grounds  which  can  not  be  disturbed  and  to  pre 
vent  that  progressive  accumulation  of  debt  which  must  ultimately  endanger 
all  governments. — Washington's  sixth  annual  address  to  Congress,  November 
19,  1794.  (Williams'  Presidents'  Messages,  volume  i,  page  59.) 


The  consequences  arising  from  the  continual  accumulation  of  public  debts 
in  other  countries  ought  to  admonish  us  to  be  careful  to  prevent  their  growth 
in  our  own.  The  national  defense  must  be  provided  for  as  well  as  the  sup 
port  of  Government,  but  both  should  be  accomplished  as  much  as  possible  by 
immediate  taxes  and  as  little  as  possible  by  loans. — President  John  Adams' 
message,  1797. 

When  effects  so  salutary  result  from  the  plan  you  have  already  sanctioned, 
when  merely  by  avoiding  false  objects  of  expense  we  are  able,  without  a  direct 
tax,  without  internal  taxes,  and  without  borrowing,  to  make  large  and  effectual 
payments  towards  the  discharge  of  our  public  debt  and  the  emancipation  of  our 
posterity  from  that  moral  canker,  it  is  an  encouragement,  fellow-citizens,  of 
the  highest  order,  to  proceed  as  we  have  begun,  in  substituting  economy  for 
taxation,  and  in  pursuing  what  is  useful  for  a  nation  placed  as  we  are,  rather 
than  what  is  practiced  by  others  under  different  circumstances.  And  whenso 
ever  we  are  destined  to  meet  events  which  shall  call  forth  all  the  energies 
of  our  countrymen,  we  have  the  firmest  reliance  on  those  energies,  and  the 
comfort  of  leaving  for  calls  like  these  the  extraordinary  resources  of  loans  and 
internal  taxes. — Jefferson's  second  annual  message  to  Congress,  December  15, 
1802.  (William's  Presidents'  Messages,  volume  i,  page  160.) 


I  am  uneasy  at  seeing  that  the  sale  of  our  western  lands  is  not  yet  com 
menced.  That  valuable  fund  for  the  immediate  extinction  of  our  debt  will,  I 
fear,  be  suffered  to  slip  through  our  fingers.  Every  delay  exposes  it  to  events 
which  no  human  foresight  can  guard  against. — Letter  to  James  Madison,  June 
20,  1787,  volume  2,  page  153. 


The  question  whether  one  generation  of  men  has  a  right  to  bind  another 
seems  never  to  have  been  started  either  on  this  or  our  side  of  the  water.  Yet 
it  is  a  question  of  such  consequences  as  not  only  to  merit  decision,  but  place 
also  among  the  fundamental  principles  of  every  government.  The  course  of 
reflection  in  which  we  are  immersed  here,  on  the  elementary  principles  of 
society,  has  presented  that  question  to  my  mind;  and  that  no  such  obligation 
can  be  transmitted  I  think  very  capable  of  proof.  I  set  out  on  this  ground, 
which  I  suppose  to  be  self-evident,  that  the  earth  belongs  in  usufruct  to  the 


174  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

living;  that  the  dead  have  neither  powers  nor  rights  over  it.  The  portion 
occupied  by  any  individual  ceases  to  be  his  when  himself  ceases  to  be,  and 
reverts  to  the  society.  If  the  society  has  formed  no  rules  for  the  appropriation 
of  its  lands  in  severally,  it  will  be  taken  by  the  first  occupants,  and  these 
will  generally  be  the  wife  and  children  of  the  decedent.  If  they  have  formed 
rules  of  appropriation,  those  rules  may  give  it  to  the  wife  and  children  or  to 
some  one  of  them,  or  to  the  legatee  of  the  deceased.  So  they  may  give  it  to  its 
creditor.  But  the  child,  the  legatee,  or  creditor  takes  it  not  by  natural  right, 
but  by  a  law  of  the  society  of  which  he  is  a  member  and  to  which  he  is  sub 
ject.  Then,  no  man  can,  by  natural  right,  oblige  the  lands  he  occupied,  or  the 
persons  who  succeed  him  in  that  occupation,  to  the  payment  of  debts  con 
tracted  by  him.  For  if  he  could  he  might  during  his  own  life  eat  up  the 
usufruct  of  the  lands  for  several  generations  to  come ;  and  then  the  lands 
would  belong  to  the  dead  and  not  to  the  living,  which  is  the  reverse  of  our 
principle. 

What  is  true  of  every  member  of  the  society  individually,  is  true  of  them 
all  collectively,  since  the  rights  of  the  whole  can  be  no  more  than  the  sum  of 
the  rights  of  the  individuals.  To  keep  our  ideas  clear  when  applying  them 
to  a  multitude,  let  us  suppose  a  whole  generation  of  men  to  be  born  on  the 
same  day,  to  attain  mature  age  on  the  same  day,  and  to  die  on  the  same  day, 
leaving  a  succeeding  generation  in  the  moment  of  attaining  their  mature  age, 
all  together.  Let  the  ripe  age  be  supposed  of  21  years,  and  their  period  of 
life  thirty-four  years  more,  that  being  the  average  term  given  by  the  bills 
of  mortality  to  persons  of  21  years  of  age.  Each  successive  generation  would, 
in  this  way,  come  and  go  off  the  stage  at  a  fixed  moment,  as  individuals  do 
now.  Then,  I  say,  the  earth  belongs  to  each  of  these  generations  during  its 
course,  fully  and  in  its  own  right.  The  second  generation  receives  it  clear 
of  the  debts  and  incumbrances  of  the  first,  the  third  of  the  second,  and  so  on. 
For  if  the  first  could  charge  it  with  debt,  then  the  earth  would  belong  to 
the  dead  and  not  to  the  living  generation.  Then  no  generation  can  contract 
debts  greater  than  may  be  paid  during  the  course  of  its  own  existence. — Letter 
written  from  Paris  to  James  Madison,  September  6,  1789,  volume  3,  page  103. 


Not  those  who  promote  unnecessary  accumulations  of  the  debt  of  the 
Union,  instead  of  the  best  means  of  discharging  it  as  fast  as  possible,  thereby 
increasing  the  causes  of  corruption  in  the  Government  and  the  pretext  for  new 
taxes  under  its  authority,  the  former  undermining  the  confidence,  the  latter 
alienating  the  affections  of  the  people. 

The  real  friends  of  the  Union  are  those  who  are  friends  to  the  authority  of 
the  people,  the  sole  foundation  on  which  the  Union  rests ; 

Who  are  friends  to  liberty,  the  great  end  for  which  the  Union  was  formed ; 

Who  are  friends  to  the  limited  and  republican  system  of  government,  the 
means  provided  by  that  authority  for  the  attainment  of  that  end; 

Who,  considering  a  public  debt  as  injurious  to  the  interests  of  the  people 
and  baneful  to  the  virtue  of  the  Government,  are  enemies  to  every  contrivance 
for  unnecessarily  increasing  its  amount,  or  protracting  its  duration,  or  extend 
ing  its  influence. 

In  a  word,  those  are  the  real  friends  of  the  Union  who  are  friends  to  that 
republican  policy  throughout  which  is  the  only  cement  for  the  union  of  a 
republican  people,  in  opposition  to  a  spirit  of  usurpation  and  monarchy, 
which  is  the  menstruum  most  capable  of  dissolving  it. — No.  15,  Writings  of 
Madison,  March  31,  1792,  page  480. 


If  Providence  permits  me  to  meet  you  at  another  session,  I  shall  have  the 
high  gratification  of  announcing  to  you  that  the  national  debt  is  extinguished. 
I  can  not  refrain  from  expressing  the  pleasure  I  feel  at  the  near  approach  of 
that  desirable  event.  The  short  period  of  time  within  which  the  public  debt 
will  have  been  discharged  is  strong  evidence  of  the  abundant  resources  of 
the  country  and  of  the  prudence  and  economy  with  which  the  Government 
has  heretofore  been  administered. — President  Jackson's  message,  1833. 


I  can  not  too  cordially  congratulate  Congress  and  my  fellow-citizens  on 
the  near  approach  of  that  memorable  and  happy  event,  the  extinction  of  the 
public  debt  of  this  great  and  free  nation.  Faithful  to  the  wise  and  patriotic 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  175 

policy  marked  out  by  the  legislation  of  the  country  for  this  object,  the  pres 
ent  Administration  has  devoted  to  it  all  the  means  which  its  flourishing  com 
merce  has  supplied  and  a  prudent  economy  preserved  for  the  Public  Treasury. 
Within  the  four  years  for  which  the  people  have  confided  the  executive 
power  to  my  charge,  $58,000,000  will  have  been  applied  to  the  payment  of  the 
public  debt. 

*  *  *  ***** 

The  final  removal  of  this  great  burden  from  our  resources  affords  the 
means  of  further  provision  for  all  the  objects  of  general  welfare  and  public 
defense  which  the  Constitution  authorizes,  and  prevents  the  occasion  for  such 
further  reduction  in  the  revenue  as  may  not  be  required  for  them. — President 
Jackson's  annual  message,  1832. 


The  paper-money  system  and  its  natural  associates,  monopoly  and  exclu 
sive  privileges,  have  already  struck  their  roots  deep  in  the  soil ;  and  it  will 
require  all  your  efforts  to  check  its  further  growth  and  to  eradicate  the  evil. 
The  men  who  profit  by  the  abuses  and  desire  to  perpetuate  them  will  con 
tinue  to  besiege  the  halls  of  legislation  in  the  General  Government  as  well  as 
in  the  States,  and  will  seek,  by  every  artifice,  to  mislead  and  deceive  the  pub 
lic  servants.  It  is  to  yourselves  that  you  must  look  for  safety  and  the  means 
of  guarding  and  perpetuating  your  free  institutions.  In  your  hands  is  right 
fully  placed  the  sovereignty  of  the  country,  and  to  you  everyone  placed  in 
authority  is  ultimately  responsible.  It  is  always  in  your  power  to  see  that 
the  wishes  of  the  people  are  carried  into  faithful  execution,  and  their  will, 
when  once  made  known,  must  sooner  or  later  be  obeyed.  And  while  the  peo 
ple  remain,  as  I  trust  they  ever  will,  uncorrupted  and  incorruptible,  and  con 
tinue  watchful  and  jealous  of  their  rights,  the  Government  is  safe,  and  the 
cause  of  freedom  will  continue  to  triumph  over  its  enemies. 

But  it  will  require  steady  and  persevering  exertions  on  your  part  to  rid 
yourself  of  the  iniquities  and  mischiefs  of  the  paper  system,  and  to  check  the 
spirit  of  monopoly  and  other  abuses  which  have  sprung  up  with  it,  and  of 
which  it  is  the  main  support.  So  many  interests  are  united  to  resist  all 
reform  on  this  subject  that  you  must  not  hope  the  conflict  will  be  a  short  one 
nor  success  easy.  My  humble  efforts  have  not  been  spared,  during  my  admin 
istration  of  the  Government,  to  restore  the  constitutional  currency  of  gold  and 
silver;  and  something,  I  trust,  has  been  done  toward  the  accomplishment  of 
this  most  desirable  object.  But  enough  yet  remains  to  require  all  your  energy 
and  perserverance.  The  power,  however,  is  in  your  hands,  and  the 
remedy  must  and  will  be  applied  if  you  determine  upon  it. — Jackson's  Farewell 
Address. 

The  creation,  in  time  of  peace,  of  a  debt  likely  to  become  permanent  is  an 
evil  for  which  there  is  no  equivalent.  The  rapidity  with  which  many  of  the 
States  are  apparently  approaching  to  this  condition  admonishes  us  of  our 
own  duties  in  a  manner  too  impressive  to  be  disregarded.  One,  not  the  least 
important,  is  to  keep  the  Federal  Government  always  in  a  condition  to  discharge 
with  ease  and  vigor  its  highest  functions,  should  their  exercise  be  required 
by  any  sudden  conjuncture  of  public  affairs — a  condition  to  which  we  are 
always  exposed,  and  which  may  occur  when  least  expected.  To  this  end 
it  is  indispensable  that  its  finances  should  be  untrammeled  and  its  resources, 
so  far  as  practicable  unencumbered.  No  circumstance  should  present  greater 
obstacles  to  the  accomplishment  of  these  vitally  important  objects  than  the 
creation  of  an  onerous  national  debt.  Our  own  experience,  and  also  that  of 
other  nations,  has  demonstrated  the  unavoidable  and  fearful  rapidity  with 
which  a  public  debt  is  increased  when  the  Government  has  once  surrendered 
itself  to  the  ruinous  practice  of  supplying  its  supposed  necessities  by  new  loans. 
The  struggle,  therefore,  on  our  part,  to  be  successful,  must  be  made  at  the 
threshold.  To  make  our  efforts  effective,  severe  economy  is  necessary.  This 
is  the  surest  provision  for  the  national  welfare,  and  it  is  at  the  same  time 
the  best  preservative  of  the  principles  on  which  our  institutions  rest.  Sim 
plicity  and  economy  in  the  affairs  of  state  have  never  failed  to  chasten  and 
invigorate  republican  principles,  while  these  have  been  as  surely  subverted  by 
national  prodigality  under  whatever  specious  pretext  it  may  have  been  intro- 


176  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

duced  or  fostered. — Van   Buren's  third  annual  message.     (Statesman's  Manual, 
volume  2,  page    1121.) 


A  few  years  ago  our  whole  national  debt  growing  out  of  the  Revolution 
and  the  war  of  1812  with  Great  Britain  was  extinguished,  and  we  presented  to 
the  world  the  rare  and  noble  spectacle  of  a  great  and  growing  people  who 
had  fully  discharged  every  obligation.  Since  that  time  the  existing  debt  has 
been  contracted;  and,  small  as  it  is  in  comparison  with  the  similar  burdens 
of  most  other  nations,  it  should  be  extinguished  at  the  earliest  practicable 
period.  Should  the  state  of  the  country  permit,  and  especially  if  our  foreign 
relations  interpose  no  obstacle,  it  is  contemplated  to  apply  all  the  moneys  in 
the  Treasury,  as  they  accrue  beyond  what  is  required  for  the  appropriations 
by  Congress,  to  its  liquidation.  I  cherish  the  hope  of  soon  being  able  to  con 
gratulate  the  country  on  its  recovering  once  more  the  lofty  position  which 
it  so  recently  occupied.  Our  country,  which  exhibits  to  the  world  the  bene 
fits  of  self-government  in  developing  all  the  sources  of  national  prosperity^ 
owes  to  mankind  the  permanent  example  of  a  nation  free  from  the  blighting 
influence  of  a  public  debt. — Folk's  first  annual  message,  December  2,  1845, 
(Statesman's  Manual,  volume  4,  page  1462.) 


The  amount  of  the  public  debt  to  be  contracted  should  be  limited  to  the 
lowest  practicable  sum,  and  should  be  extinguished  as  early  after  the  conclu 
sion  of  the  war  as  the  means  of  the  Treasury  will  permit. 

With  this  view  it  is  recommended  that  as  soon  as  the  war  shall  be  over  all 
the  surplus  in  the  Treasury,  not  needed  for  other  indispensable  objects,  shall 
constitute  a  sinking  fund  and  be  applied  to  the  purchase  of  the  funded  debt, 
and  that  authority  be  conferred  by  laws  for  that  purpose. — Folk's  third  annual 
message,  December  7,  1847.  (Statesman's  Manual,  volume  4,  page  1704.) 


Besides  making  the  necessary  legislative  provisions  for  the  execution  of 
the  treaty,  and  the  establishment  of  Territorial  governments  in  the  ceded  coun 
try,  we  have,  upon  the  restoration  of  peace,  other  important  duties  to  per 
form.  Among  these  I  regard  none  as  more  important  than  the  adoption  of 
proper  measures  for  the  speedy  extinguishment  of  the  national  debt.  It  is 
against  sound  policy  and  the  genius  of  our  institutions  that  a  public  debt 
should  be  permitted  a  day  longer  than  the  means  of  the  Treasury  will  enable 
the  Government  to  pay  it  off.  We  should  adhere  to  the  wise  policy  laid  down 
by  President  Washington,  of  "  avoiding  the  accumulation  of  debt,  not  only 
by  shunning  occasions  of  expense,  but  by  vigorous  exertions  in  time  of  peace, 
to  discharge  debts  which  unavoidable  wars  have  occasioned,  not 
ungenerously  throwing  upon  posterity  the  burden  we  ourselves  ought  to  bear." 
— Folk's  special  message,  July  6,  1848,  (Statesman's  Manual,  volume  4,  page 
I743-) 


In  my  message  of  the  6th  of  July  last,  transmitting  to  Congress  the  ratified 
treaty  of  peace  with  Mexico,  I  recommended  the  adoption  of  measures  for  the 
speedy  payment  of  the  public  debt.  In  reiterating  that  recommendation,  I 
refer  you  to  the  considerations  presented  in  that  message  in  its  support. 


The  public  expenditures  should  be  economical  and  be  confined  to  such  nec 
essary  objects  as  are  clearly  within  the  powers  of  Congress.  All  such  as  are 
not  absolutely  demanded  should  be  postponed  and  the  payment  of  the  public 
debt  at  the  earliest  practicable  period  should  be  a  cardinal  principle  of  our 
public  policy. — Folk's  fourth  annual  message,  December  5,  (Statesman's  Man 
ual,  volume  4,  page  1774.) 


The  following  are  from  Clay,  Calhoun,  Crawford,  and  Benton : 

Mr.  Clay   said,   in    1816,   he   would — 

"  Lay  down  a  general  rule,  from  which  there  ought  never  to  be  a  departure 
without  absolute  necessity,  that  the  expense  of  the  year  ought  to  be  met  by 
the  revenue  of  the  year.  If  in  time  of  war  it  were  impossible  to  observe  this 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  177 

rule  we  ought  in  time  of  peace  to  provide  for  as  speedy  a  discharge  of  the 
debt  contracted  in  the  preceding  war  as  possible." 

And  in  1824  he  said : 

"  The  payment  of  that  debt  and  the  consequent  liberation  of  the  public 
resources  from  the  charge  of  it  is  extremely  desirable. 

"  The  moral  value  of  the  payment  of  a  national  debt  consists  in  the  demon 
stration  which  it  affords  of  the  ability  of  a  country  to  meet  and  its  integrity 
in  fulfilling  all  its  engagements.  *  *  Whoever  may  be  entitled  to  the 
credit  of  the  payment  of  the  public  debt,  I  congratulate  you,  sir,  and  the  country 
most  cordially  that  it  is  so  near  at  hand." 

I  shall  oppose  strenously  all  attempts  to  originate  a  new  debt;  to  create  a 
national  bank ;  to  reunite  the  political  and  money  power — more  dangerous 
than  that  of  church  and  state — in  any  form  or  shape. — Calhoun  on  the  bill  for 
the  issue  of  Treasury  notes,  United  States  Senate,  September  18,  1837.  (Abridg 
ment  Debates  in  Congress,  volume  13,  page  363.) 


An  attentive  examination  of  the  rise  and  fall  of  public  debts  in  other  coun 
tries  can  not  fail  to  impress  the  American  Republic  with  the  necessity  of  mak 
ing  suitable  exertions  in  periods  of  peace  to  release  the  national  revenue  from 
so  heavy  an  incumbrance. — W .  H.  Crawford,  December  16,  1816. 


What  more  unwise  and  more  unjust  than  to  contract  debts  on  long  time, 
as  some  of  the  States  have  done,  thereby  invading  the  rights  and  mortgaging 
the  resources  of  posterity,  and  loading  unborn  generations  with  debts  not  their 
own?  What  more  unwise  than  all  this,  which  several  of  the  States  have  done, 
and  which  the  effort  now  is  to  make  all  do?  Besides  the  ultimate  burden,  in 
the  shape  of  final  payment,  which  is  intended  to  fall  upon  posterity,  the  present 
burden  is  incessant  in  the  shape  of  annual  interest,  and,  falling  upon  each  gener 
ation,  equals  the  principal  in  every  periodical  return  of  ten  or  a  dozen  years. 
Few  have  calculated  the  devouring  effect  of  annual  interest  on  public  debts  and 
considered  how  soon  it  exceeds  the  principal. — Benton's  speech  on  assumption 
of  State  debts;  Thirty  Years'  View,  volume  2,  page  173. 

The  following  are  the  declarations  of  the  national  Democracy  in  their  plat 
forms  : 

"A  rigorously,  frugal  administration  of  the  Government  and  the  applica 
tion  of  all  the  possible  savings  of  the  public  revenue  to  the  liquidation  of  the 
public  debt,  and  resistance,  therefore,  to  all  measures  looking  to  the  multiplica 
tion  of  officers  and  salaries  merely  to  create  indebtedness  and  augment  the 
public  debt  on  the  principle  of  its  being  a  public  blessing."— Platform  of  1800, 
article  4. 


"  We  declare  unqualified  hostility  to  bank  notes  and  paper  money  as  a  cir 
culating  medium,  because  gold  and  silver  is  the  only  safe  and  constitutional 
currency." — Platform,  1836. 

"ART.  6.  That  Congress  has  no  power  to  charter  a  United  States  bank; 
that  we  believe  such  an  institution  one  of  deadly  hostility  to  the  interests  of 
the  country,  dangerous  to  our  republican  institutions  and  the  liberties  of  the 
people,  and  calculated  to  place  the  business  of  the  country  within  the  control 
of  a  concentrated  money  power  and  above  the  laws  and  will  of  the  people." — 
Democratic  platform,  1840. 


Democratic  platform  of  1844  affirms  article  6  of  the  platform  of  1840. 

Democratic  platform  of  1848  declares — 

"  For  the  gradual  but  certain  extinction  of  the  public  debt." 

The  platform  of  1848  further  declares  that  the  triumph  of  1844  had  fulfilled 
the  hopes  of  the  Democracy  of  the  Union  in  defeating  the  declared  purposes  of 
their  opponents  to  create  a  national  bank.  In  protecting  the  currency  and  labor 
of  the  country  from  ruinous  fluctuations  and  guarding  the  money  of  the  country 
for  the  use  of  the  people  by  the  establishment  of  a  constitutional  Treasury. 

Also— 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  the  duty  of  every  branch  of  the  Government  to 
enforce  and  practice  the  most  rigid  economy  in  conducting  our  public  affairs, 


178  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

and  that  no  more  revenue  ought  to  be  raised  than  is  required  to  defray  the 
necessary  expenses  of  the  Government  and  for  the  gradual  but  certain  extinc 
tion  of  the  public  debt." — Democratic  platform,  1852,  article  8. 


Article  9  of  the  same : 

"  That  Congress  has  no  power  to  charter  a  national  bank ;  that  we  believe 
such  an  institution  one  of  deadly  hostility  to  the  best  interests  of  the  country, 
dangerous  to  our  republican  institutions  and  the  liberties  of  the  people,  and 
calculated  to  place  the  business  of  the  country  within  the  control  of  a  con 
centrated  money  power  above  the  laws  and  will  of  the  people." — Democratic 
platform,  1852,  article  9. 


That  Congress  has  no  power  to  charter  a  national  bank;  that  we  believe 
such  an  institution  one  of  deadly  hostility  to  the  best  interests  of  the  coun 
try,  dangerous  to  our  republican  institutions  and  the  liberties  of  the  American 
people,  and  calculated  to  place  the  business  of  the  country  within  the  control 
of  a  concentrated  money  power  and  above  the  laws  and  will  of  the  people. — 
Democratic  platform,  1856,  article  7. 


Payment  of  all  the  public  debt  of  the  United  States  as  rapidly  as  practi 
cable. — Democratic  platform,  1868,  article  3. 


HAWAIIAN  AFFAIRS 


SPEECH  DELIVERED 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
Wednesday,  February  21,  1894. 

The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  resolution  reported  by  Mr. 
TURPIE,  from  the  committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  January  23,  1894,  declaratory 
of  the  policy  to  be  pursued  under  existing  conditions  toward  the  Government 
of  Hawaii — 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California  said : 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  After  the  exceedingly  interesting  and  somewhat 
exciting  episode  of  this  morning,  I  can  not  expect  to  challenge  the 
attentive  consideration  of  the  Senate,  nor  do  I  anticipate  that  in  say 
ing  what  I  have  to  utter  upon  the  pending  resolution,  I  shall  be  able 
to  adduce  anything  novel.  In  view,  however,  of  the  circumstance 
that  it  has  been  proposed  to  annex  the  Hawaiian  Islands  not  only  to 
the  United  States,  but  particularly  to  the  State  of  California,  which  I 
in  part  represent  here,  I  have  considered  it  proper  to  interject  some 
remarks  regarding  the  entire  subject.  In  order  to  correctly  present 
the  views  which  I  deem  appropriate  to  the  occasion,  I  consider  that 
it  will  be  necessary  at  the  outset  to  speak  of  the  state  of  affairs  which 
met  President  Cleveland  when  he  assumed  the  discharge  of  his  high 
trust. 

In  the  first  place,  there  was  at  that  time  pending  in  this  body  a 
proposed  treaty  of  annexation,  an  instrument  whereby  it  was  attempted 
not  merely  to  establish  diplomatic  relations  between  the  United  States 
and  the  Provisional  Government,  but  the  effect  of  which,  had  it  been 
ratified,  would  have  been  the  subversion  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  and  the  conference  of  supreme  territorial  jurisdic 
tion  upon  the  United  States.  It  was  then  a  matter  of  common  report, 
known  to  everyone,  that  it  was  questionable  whether  the  so-called 
Provisional  Government,  proposing  that  treaty,  had  been  so  regularly 
constituted  as  to  merit  continued  diplomatic  relations.  The  President 
was  confronted  with  this  condition  of  things.  The  proposed  treaty 
was  here,  and  there  was  doubt,  uncertainty,  or  at  least  debate,  as  to 
the  propriety  and  legality  of  the  proceedings  leading  up  to  the  pres 
entation  of  the  treaty.  It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  the 
President  saw  fit  to  appoint  a  commissioner  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands. 

I  shall  consider  in  a  moment  the  question  arising  out  of  the 
action  of  the  Executive  in  appointing  that  commissioner  and  touching 
his  power  to  do  so.  It  is  not  disputed  that  the  situation  was  as  I  have 
described  it.  Mr.  Cleveland  could  not  properly  while  this  status 
existed  nominate  and  submit  to  the  Senate  a  minister  to  the  Hawaiian 
Islands  without  doing  violence  to  the  views  which  he  did  at  that  time 
necessarily  entertain.  In  the  first  place,  it  had  been  reported  that  a 
revolution  had  taken  place,  and  it  was  said  that,  as  the  result  of 
domestic  action,  the  monarchy  had  been  destroyed,  and  that  a  govern- 

179 


180  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

ment,  called  a  Provisional  Government,  had  been  erected  upon  its 
ashes.  The  charge  was  freely  made  that  this  transition  had  been 
accomplished  by  the  efforts  of  our  minister,  Mr.  Stevens,  and  the 
naval  forces  of  the  United  States. 

At  the  outset  I  freely  concede  that  it  is  no  part  of  the  affair  of 
this  Government  as  to  how  a  foreign  revolutionary  government  has 
been  created.  It  is  beyond  our  jurisdiction,  I  admit,  to  interfere  to 
that  extent  in  the  affairs  of  a  foreign  state.  The  rule,  I  think,  is 
correctly  stated  by  Gen.  Halleck  in  his  work  upon  International  Law, 
as  follows : 

The  right  of  every  sovereign  state  to  establish,  alter,  or  abolish  its  own 
municipal  constitution  and  form  of  government  would  seem  to  follow,  as  a 
necessary  conclusion,  from  these  premises.  And  from  the  same  course  of 
reasoning  it  will  be  inferred  that  no  foreign  state  can  interfere  with  the 
exercise  of  this  right,  no  matter  what  political  or  civil  institutions  such  sov 
ereign  state  may  see  fit  to  adopt  for  the  government  of  its  own  subjects  and 
citizens.  It  may  freely  'change  from  a  monarchy  to  a  republic,  from  a 
republic  to  a  limited  monarchy,  or  to  a  despotism,  or  to  a  government  of  any 
imaginable  shape,  so  long  as  such  change  is  not  of  a  character  to  imme 
diately,  or  of  necessity,  affect  the  independence,  freedom,  and  security  of 
others.  (Halleck's  International  Law,  page  77.) 

The  same  doctrine  is  found  in  Pomeroy's  International  Law, 
Woolsey's  edition,  page  47;  Hall's  International  Law,  page  21 ;  Wool- 
sey's  International  Law,  section  40. 

Said  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in  Williams  vs. 
Bruffy,  96  U.  S.  185. 

Those  who  engage  in  rebellion  must  consider  the  consequences ;  if  they 
succeed,  rebellion  becomes  revolution,  and  the  new  government  will  justify 
its  founders. 

Indeed,  I  do  not  understand  that  this  view  is  at  all  challenged. 
In  his  celebrated  letter  to  the  sheriffs  of  Bristol,  Edmund  Burke 
wrote : 

If  there  be  one  fact  in  the  world  perfectly  clear  it  is  this :  That  the  disposi 
tion  of  the  people  of  America  is  wholly  averse  to  any  other  than  a  free  gov 
ernment  ;  and  this  is  indication  enough  to  any  honest  statesman  how  he  ought 
to  adapt  whatever  power  he  finds  in  his  hands  to  their  case.  If  any  ask  me 
what  a  free  government  is,  I  answer  that  for  any  practical  purpose  it  is  what 
the  people  think  so  and  that  they,  not  I,  are  the  natural,  lawful,  and  com 
petent  judges  of  this  matter.  (2  Burke's  works,  page  283.) 

I  have  referred  to  these  authorities,  Mr.  President,  that  my  con 
clusions  may  not  be  misunderstood,  and  that  it  may  be  fully  appre 
ciated  that  in  everything  which  I  say  I  recognize  and  admit  the 
absolute  power  of  the  people  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  to  establish 
any  sort  of  a  government  which  to  them  may  seem  proper.  Mr. 
Cleveland,  as  I  interpret  his  position,  has  never  made  any  contrary 
assertion.  Indeed,  the  very  acts  regarding  which  there  has  been  dis 
pute  here  have  been  performed  because  of  a  desire  on  his  part  to 
relieve  a  foreign  government  from  the  effect  of  such  interference  upon 
the  part  of  Mr.  Stevens  and  certain  naval  officers  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Stevens  bore  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands  the  following  letter  of 
credence : 

Benjamin  Harrison,  President  of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  Her  Majesty 

Liliuokalanij  Queen  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands. 

GREAT  AND  GOOD  FRIEND:  Having  determined  that  Mr.  John  L.  Stevens, 
who  was  accredited  as  the  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipoten- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  181 

tiary  of  the  United   States,  to  reside  near  the  government  of  your  illustrious 
predecessor,     King    Kalakaua,    shall    exercise    the    same    functions    near    the 
government  of  your  majesty,  I  have  instructed  that  gentleman  to  present  to  you 
this  expression  of  my  wishes,  and  to  commend  him  to  your  confidence,  as  the 
trusted  agent  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  Hawaii,  in  the  full 
belief  that  he  will   deserve  that  confidence  and  that  his  mission  will  serve  to 
draw  still  closer,  if  possible,  the  friendly  relations  of  the  two  countries. 
I  pray  God  to  have  your  majesty  in  His  wise  keeping. 
Written  at  Washington,  the  9th  day  of  March,  1891. 

Your  good   friend,  BENJ.    HARRISON. 

By  the  President : 

JAMES  G.  ELAINE, 

Secretary  of  State. 

Under  these  credentials  Mr.  Stevens  entered  upon  the  discharge 
of  his  duties.  He  was  commissioned  to  no  provisional  government, 
he  bore  no  letter  of  credence  to  any  power  save  that  which  was  repre 
sented  by  the  Queen ;  and  at  the  time  the  change  of  government  took 
place  his  legal  status,  as  I  understand  it,  is  correctly  set  forth  in  the 
following  quotation,  which  I  shall  also  make  from  Gen.  Halleck : 

Where  the  mission  terminates  by  the  decrease  or  abdication  of  the  minis 
ter's  own  sovereign,  or  the  sovereign  to  whom  he  is  accredited,  it  is  usual 
for  him  to  await  a  renewal  of  his  letters  of  credence.  In  the  former  case,  a 
mere  notification  of  the  continuance  of  his  appointment  is  sent  by  the  suc 
cessor  of  the  deceased  or  deposed  sovereign,  and  in  the  latter  new  letters 
of  credence  are  sent  to  the  minister  to  be  presented  to  the  new  ruler.  If  a 
radical  change  should  take  place  in  the  character  or  organization  of  his 
own  government,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  minister  to  await  new  letters 
of  credence,  or  a  ratification  of  his  appointment  by  the  new  government. 
The  government  to  which  he  is  accredited  would  be  justified  in  declining  any 
new  negotiations  with  him  without  such  ratification  or  new  appointment, 
or  at  least  without  some  evidence  of  a  renewal  or  continuance  of  his 
powers.  (International  Law,  page  82.) 

A  radical  change  in  the  form  of  government  terminates  the  mis 
sion  of  a  diplomatic  agent.  Such  is  the  rule  laid  down  in  Pomeroy's 
International  Law,  pages  438,  439;  Boyd's  Wheaton,  pages  321,  352; 
Vattel,  pages  460,  461 ;  Hall's  International  Law,  page  301,  section 
98;  Woolsey's  International  Law  (sixth  edition,  1892),  page  157. 

In  Prof.  Woolsey's  edition  of  Pomeroy's  International  Law,  sec 
tion  363,  the  writer,  in  speaking  of  the  practice  as  I  have  stated  it, 
says: 

I  think  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  reason  as  well  as  practice  favors  the 
latter  view.  For  although  every  state  must  decide  its  form  of  government 
for  itself,  yet  after  every  violent  change  in  the  constitution  of  a  state  its 
stability  and  legality  are,  so  to  speak,  on  trial.  Other  states  are  compelled 
to  ask  whether  the  new  government  is  capable  of  fulfilling  its  obligations 
before  entering  into  relations  with  it.  So  that  the  same  rules  govern  the 
question  of  diplomatic  intercourse  with  a  new  state,  or  an  old  state  under 
a  new  government,  which  govern  its  recognition.  How,  then,  could  a  mission 
to  the  old  state  be  suspended  or  be  otherwise  than  terminated  when,  for  an 
appreciable  moment,  there  is  question  whether  any  mission  will  be  received  from 
or  sent  to  the  new  power? 

Mr.  President,  therefore,  the  moment  that  by  revolutionary  acts 
the  Government  to  which  Mr.  Stevens  was  sent  ceased  to  be,  that 
moment  he  occupied  the  position  of  one  who  had  been  a  minister  to 
the  court  of  Queen  Liliuokalani,  but  who  was  compelled  to  wait 
instructions  from  his  parent  Government.  It  was  his  duty  to  protect 
the  interests  of  American  citizens.  If  he  recognized  the  new  gov- 


182  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

ernment,  his  act  depended  for  its  validity  upon  the  ratification  of  our 
Executive.  Under  those  conditions,  the  preceding  Administration 
saw  fit  to  advise  Mr.  Stevens  to  assume  diplomatic  relations  with  those 
who  constituted  the  Provisional  Government. 

I  am  aware  that  it  is  laid  down  by  at  least  one  author  upon  inter 
national  law  that  in  case  of  the  recognition  of  belligerency  there  can 
be  no  withdrawal  of  the  recognition,  and  it  is  argued  a  fortiori  that 
that  must  be  the  case  where  the  independence  of  a  revolutionary 
government  is  recognized ;  but  I  take  it,  if  such  a  case  were  ever  pre 
sented,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  newly  recognized  government, 
so  called,  had  in  fact  no  nationality,  that  the  recognition  received  was 
fraudulently  obtained,  and  that  the  organization  claiming  to  represent 
the  people  was  created,  brought  into  existence,  and  maintained  by  the 
agents  and  officers  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  then  and 
in  such  event  the  Executive  in  the  exercise  of  those  powers  which  he 
holds  for  justice  and  right  could  and  should  repudiate  such  recogni 
tion —  always  guarding  the  interests  of  innocent  third  parties.  As 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Executive  to  so  sever  diplomatic,  relations,  I 
have  no  doubt. 

This  was  the  condition  which  confronted  Mr.  Cleveland.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  say  that  it  had  been  demonstrated  that  this  state 
of  things  really  existed,  but  from  the  facts  and  surroundings  of  the 
matter  it  was  rational  to  conclude  that  such  recognition  as  had  been 
accorded  had  been  acquired  by  deception. 

He  made  no  nomination  of  a  minister  because  he  did  not  know 
whether  the  developments  of  the  situation  would  justify  the  sending 
of  such  a  representative.  But  he  appointed  a  commissioner  to  the 
islands  with  specific  instructions,  looking  to  the  ascertaining  of  such 
facts  as  would  tend  to  throw  light  upon  the  situation.  Information 
was  essential.  The  President  felt  it  to  be  his  duty  —  and  he  was  right 
about  it  —  to  determine  whether,  first,  there  should  be  any  continua 
tion  of  diplomatic  intercourse;  and,  secondly,  whether  the  treaty 
pending  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  should  be  ratified. 

As  to  the  power  of  the  Executive  upon  this  subject  there  should 
be  no  controversy. 

THE  EXECUTIVE  HAS  THE  SOLE  JURISDICTION  TO  DETERMINE  WHEN  IT  IS  PROPER  TO 
RECOGNIZE  A  REVOLUTIONARY  GOVERNMENT,  AND  MUST  INAUGURATE,  AS  FAR 
AS  THE  UNITED  STATES  IS  CONCERNED,  ALL  TREATY  PROPOSITIONS. 

The  question  of  recognition  of  foreign  revolutionary  or  reactionary  gov 
ernments  is  one  exclusively  for  the  Executive,  and  can  not  be  determined 
internationally  by  Congressional  action. 

Different  expressions  are  used  in  different  judicial  decisions 
regarding  this  power. 

In  the  Prize  cases,  2  Black,  666,  I  find  the  following: 

That  a  blockade  de  facto  actually  existed  and  was  formally  declared  and 
notified  by  the  President  on  the  2;th  and  3Oth  of  April,  1861,  is  an  admitted 
fact  in  these  cases. 

That  the  President,  as  the  Executive  Chief  of  the  Government  and  Com- 
mander-in-Chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy,  was  the  proper  person  to  make  such 
notification  has  not  been  and  can  not  be  disputed. 

On  page  668,  same  decision,  I  find  the  following : 

The  battles  of  Palo  Alto  and  Resaca  de  la  Palma  had  been  fought  before 
the  passage  of  the  act  of  Congress  of  May  13,  1846,  which  recognized  a  state  of 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  183 

war  as  existing  by  the  act  of  the  Republic  of  Mexico.  This  act  (the  act  of 
Congress)  not  only  provided  for  the  future  prosecution  of  the  war,  but  was 
itself  a  vindication  and  ratification  of  the  act  of  the  President. 

In  United  States  vs.  Yorba,  i  Wall.,  412,  the  power  to  recognize 
is  stated  to  be  lodged  in  the  political  department  of  the  Government. 

In  United  States  vs.  Hutchings,  2  Wheeler,  C.  C.  546,  which 
action  was  tried  in  1815  before  Marshall,  the  authority  is  spoken  of  as 
being  vested  in  the  Executive. 

In  the  Hornet,  2  Abbott,  U.  S.  35,  a  case  tried  before  Judge 
Brooks,  in  1870,  in  the  United  States  district  court  of  North  Carolina, 
the  phrase  "  Executive  power  "  is  used. 

In  United  States  vs.  Baker,  5  Blatchford,  56,  we  find  legislative 
and  executive  spoken  of. 

The  same  in  United  States  vs.  Palmer,  3  Wheaton,  610;  and  in 
the  Nueva  Anna,  6  Wheaton,  193 ;  and  in  Gelston  vs.  Hoyt,  3 
Wheaton,  324  —  the  power  is  described  as  being  exercised  by  the 
Government. 

In  the  Ambrose  Light,  25  Federal  Reporter,  409;  United  States 
vs.  Itata,  56  Id.,  505 ;  United  States  vs.  Trumbull,  48  Id.,  99,  it  is  said 
that  the  right  to  recognize  belligerency  rests  in  the  Executive. 

The  case  of  Kennett  vs.  Chambers  (14  Howard,  47)  is  instruc 
tive  upon  this  subject  and  contains  an  allusion  to  the  proceedings  of 
this  Government  regarding  the  acknowledgment  of  the  independence 
of  Texas  which  it  is  well  to  note.  See  also  note  of  Mr.  Wharton,  i 
Wharton,  Id.,  page  553. 

Some  of  these  cases  have  reference  to  the  recognition  of  belliger 
ency  and  some  refer  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  status  of  inde 
pendent  nations. 

Mr.  Seward,  in  a  letter  written  to  Mr.  Dayton,  our  minister,  in 
April,  1864,  said : 

[No.    525-] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE,  Washington,  April  7,  1864. 

Sir:  I  have  received  your  dispatch  of  March  25,  No.  442,  which  informs 
me  of  the  completion  of  the  loan  to  the  Grand  Duke  Maximilian,  and  of  his 
anticipated  embarkation  for  Mexico.  In  order  that  you  may  understand  the 
condition  of  affairs  in  that  country  as  fully  as  they  are  understood  here,  I 
have  given  you  a  copy  of  a  communication  which  has  lately  been  received 
from  our  consul  at  Matamoras. 

I  give  you  also,  for  your  information  a  copy  of  a  note  which  has  been 
received  from  Mr.  Geofroy  on  the  subject  of  the  protection  which  was  extended 
to  the  consul  at  that  place  by  Maj.  GvM.  Heron,  and  of  my  answer  to  that 
paper.  This  correspondence  embraces  some  other  incidental  subjects.  It  is 
proper  to  say  that  Mr.  Geofroy  proposes  to  communicate  to  me  a  statement 
of  another  distinct  subject  of  complaint  in  regard  to  proceedings  on  the  frontier 
under  instructions  from  Mr.  Dronyn  de  Lhuys,  and  that  I  have  engaged  to 
bestow  due  consideration  upon  it. 

I  send  you  a  copy  of  a  resolution  which  passed  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  on  the  4th  instant  by  a  unanimous  vote,  and  which  declares  the  oppo 
sition  of  that  body  to  a  recognition  of  a  monarchy  in  Mexico.  Mr.  Geofroy 
has  lost  no  time  in  asking  for  an  explanation  of  this  proceeding.  It  is  hardly 
necessary,  after  what  I  have  heretofore  written  with  perfect  candor  for  the 
information  of  France,  to  say  that  this  resolution  truly  interprets  the  unan 
imous  sentiment  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  Mexico.  It 
is,  however,  another  and  distinct  question  whether  the  United  States  would 
think  it  necessary  or  proper  to  express  themselves  in  the  form  adopted  by 
the  House  of  Representatives  at  this  time.  This  is  a  practical  and  purely 
Executive  question,  and  the  decision  of  it  constitutionally  belongs  not  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  nor  even  to  Congress,  but  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States. 


184  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

You  will  of  course  take  notice  that  the  declaration  made  by  the  House  of 
Representatives  is  in  the  form  of  a  joint  resolution,  which  before  it  can  acquire 
the  character  of  a  legislative  act  must  receive  first  the  concurrence  of  the 
Senate,  and  secondly  the  approval  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or 
in  case  of  his  dissent  the  renewed  assent  of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  to  be 
expressed  by  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  each  body.  While  the  President 
received  the  declaration  of  the  House  of  Representatives  with  the  profound 
respect  to  which  it  is  entitled  as  an  expression  upon  a  grave  and  important 
subject,  he  directs  that  you  inform  the  Government  of  France  that  he  does 
not  at  present  contemplate  any  departure  from  the  policy  which  this  Govern 
ment  has  hitherto  pursued  in  regard  to  the  war  which  exists  between  France 
and  Mexico.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  the  proceeding  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  was  adopted  upon  suggestions  arising  within  itself,  and  not 
upon  any  communication  of  the  executive  department,  and  that  the  French 
Government  would  be  seasonably  apprised  of  any  change  of  policy  upon 
this  subject  which  the  President  might  at  any  future  time  think  it  proper 
to  adopt. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

WILLIAM    L.    DAYTON,   Esq.,   etc.,    etc.,   etc. 

There  is  no  substantial  conflict,  as  I  have  said,  in  the  authorities 
that  the  right  to  recognize  either  belligerency  or  independence  is 
vested  exclusively  in  the  Executive.  It  is  true  that  there  are 
instances  in  the  history  of  this  Government  where  the  Senate  and 
House  of  Representatives  have  both  been  consulted,  but  such  consul 
tation  was  at  the  mere  will  of  the  Executive,  and  was  no  indication, 
even  by  implication,  that  the  President's  so  asking  advise  had  any 
doubt  of  the  exclusiveness  of  his  power. 

Thus  President  Cleveland,  possessing  the  authority  conferred 
by  the  Constitution,  found  that  the  condition  of  affairs  in  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  was  in  dispute  and  in  doubt. 

When  he  was  compelled  to  either  make  a  treaty  subject  to  the 
concurrence  of  the  Senate  or  to  withdraw  the  compact  proposed 
through  his  predecessor  and  to  determine  what  diplomatic  relations, 
if  any,  should  be  maintained  with  the  provisional  establishment,  it 
was  not  only  within  his  power,  but  obviously  his  duty,  to  investigate 
and  find  the  facts.  To  have  appointed  a  minister  would  have  been 
at  once  to  recognize  the  existence  of  that  which  was  in  obscurity ;  to 
have  remained  without  information  would  have  been  to  fail  in  the 
performance  of  his  functions. 

The  distinguished  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  HOAR]  in 
the  course  of  his  speech  referred  to  sections  1674,  1684,  1751,  and 
1760  of  the  Revised  Statutes  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  Mr. 
Blount's  appointment  was  without  authority  of  law.  The  same  sec 
tions  were  referred  to  by  the  able  Senator  from  Minnesota  [Mr. 
DAVIS].  The  citation  from  section  1674  is  as  follows: 

Diplomatic  officers  shall  be  deemed  to  include  ambassadors,  envoys  extra 
ordinary,  ministers  plenipotentiary,  ministers  resident,  commissioners,  charges 
d'affairs,  agents,  and  secretaries  of  legation,  and  none  others. 

Section  1684,  as  far  as  quoted,  is  as  follows : 

To  entitle  any  charge  d'affairs,  or  secretary  of  any  legation  or  embassy  to 
any  foreign  country,  or  secretary  of  any  minister  plenipotentiary,  to  com 
pensation,  they  shall  respectively  be  appointed  by  the  President,  by  and  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate. 

That  portion  of  section  1751,  to  which  the  distinguished  Senators 
attracted  our  attention,  is  worded  thus : 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  185 

No  diplomatic  or  consular  officer  shall  correspond  in  regard  to  the  public 
affairs  of  any  foreign  government  with  any  private  person,  newspaper,  or 
ether  periodical,  or  otherwise  than  with  the  proper  officers  of  the  United 

States. 

Mr.  President,  I  assert  that  the  executive  power  of  the  Presi 
dent  being  derived,  as  it  is,  from  the  Constitution,  is  not  subject  to 
abridgment  by  any  legislative  act.  I  secondly  asserverate  that  there 
is  not  a  word  in  either  of  the  sections  to  which  I  have  attracted  atten 
tion,  which,  in  any  manner,  derogates  from  my  argument  or  tends  to 
show  that  the  President  in  any  way  infringed  upon  the  power  of  any 
other  department  of  this  Government  or  passed  beyond  the  limits  of 
his  own. 

In  the  first  place,  the  second  section  which  I  mentioned,  and  to 
which  I  make  reference  because  of  the  arguments  to  which  I  am 
attempting  to  formulate  an  answer,  omits  the  words  "  commissioners 
and  agents ;"  that  is  to  say,  section  1684  was  quoted  by  learned  Sena 
tors  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that,  because  there  is  no  provision 
for  compensation  therein,  that  hence  that  section,  indirectly  at  least, 
prohibits  the  President  from  making  such  an  appointment  as  he  made 
in  the  case  of  Mr.  Blount.  Let  it  be  noted  that  although  in  section 
1674  the  words  "  commissioners  "  and  "  agents  "  are  used  in  the  defi 
nition  of  "  diplomatic  officers,"  yet  these  identical  terms  are  studiously 
omitted  in  section  1684,  showing  that  the  legislative  power  ex  industria 
relieved  from  the  limitations  of  that  part  of  the  law  both  "  commis 
sioners  "  and  "  agents." 

Section  1751  prevents  any  diplomatic  or  consular  officer  from  cor 
responding  with  any  private  person,  newspaper,  or  other  periodical, 
and  it  is  argued  that  Mr.  Blount  violated  his  duty,  and  that  the  Pres 
ident  was  wrong  in  commissioning  him  tq  advise  or  talk  or  hold  any 
communication  with  any  third  party. 

This  assertion  is  tantamount  to  a  declaration  that  the  President 
of  the  United  States  had  no  right  to  send  Mr.  Blount  abroad  for  the 
purpose  of  making  any  inquiry;  it  is  equivalent  to  a  declaration  that 
if  his  name  had  been  submitted  to  the  Senate  and  his  confirmation  had 
been  had,  still  he  would  have  had  no  power  to  perform  the  duties 
assigned  to  him,  which  duties,  Senators  assert,  could  not  be  dis 
charged  unless  he  had  been  confirmed. 

Manifestly,  section  1751  has  reference  to  diplomatic  officers  who 
have  been  nominated  and  by  and  with  the  advice  of  the  Senate 
appointed.  Hence,  the  argument  of  the  Senator  proves  altogether 
too  much,  for  if  he  be  correct,  it  results  that  the  President  of  the 
United  States  can  never  send  abroad  anyone  to  make  any  inquiry 
whatever  regarding  foreign  affairs.  For  his  theory  is  that  taking 
testimony  such  as  Blount  took  is  corresponding  regarding  govern 
mental  affairs  within  the  purview  of  section  1751.  Reduced  to  this 
conclusion,,  the  argument  fails,  I  think,  for  I  do  not  imagine  that 
any  one  will  seek  to  maintain  it  if  these  premises  are  correct,  and 
even  a  cursory  perusal  of  the  statutes  seem  to  leave  no  other  con 
clusion. 

The  declared  purpose  of  the  law-making  body  in  enacting  section 
1751,  was  to  inhibit  a  minister  or  consul  from  divulging  the  secrets 
of  a  foreign  government  to  any  party  or  parties  outside  of  the  proper 
officers  of  the  United  States. 

If  the   commissioner  or   agent  mentioned   in   section    1674   is   a 

13 


186  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

diplomatic  officer  who  can  not  take  testimony  as  did  Blount,  it  is 
certain  that  such  an  examination  as  Blount  was  instructed  to  make 
could  not  legally  be  carried  on  by  a  minister  regularly  confirmed. 

It  is  by  no  means  evident  that  Mr.  Blount  ever  assumed  diplo 
matic  functions.  He  was  sent  to  the  islands  solely  for  the  purpose 
of  investigating  and  fully  reporting  to  the  President  all  facts  respect 
ing  the  condition  of  affairs  in  that  country,  the  cause  of  the 
revolution,  and  the  sentiment  of  the  people. 

Diplomacy  is  defined  to  be  "  The  science  of  the  forms,  cere 
monies,  and  methods  to  be  observed  in  conducting  the  actual  inter 
course  of  one  state  with  another,  through  authorized  agents,  on  the 
basis  of  international  law ;  the  art  of  conducting  such  intercourse,  as 
in  negotiating  and  drafting  treaties,  representing  the  interests  of  a 
state  or  its  subjects  at  a  foreign  court,  etc." — Century  Dictionary. 

The  word  diplomacy  implies  the  existence  of  negotiations.  Mr. 
Blount  was  not  authorized  to  negotiate  with  the  Provisional  Govern 
ment  nor  to  do  anything  but  arrive  at  a  correct  knowledge  of  the 
status  of  affairs. 

Indeed,  the  ultimate  purpose  of  Mr.  Blount's  mission  was  to 
settle  the  character  of  our  relations  with  the  islands  and  to  determine 
whether  we  would  or  would  not  accredit  a  minister  to  that  portion 
of  the  world.  The  so-called  paramount  power  was  conferred  solely 
for  the  purpose  of  enabling  him  to  carry  on  the  investigation. 

The  able  Senator  from  Delaware  [Mr.  GRAY]  has  demonstrated 
both  on  principle  and  authority  that  in  Mr.  Blount's  case  there  was 
no  office  to  be  filled ;  that  the  office  spoken,  of  in  the  Constitution 
refers  to  a  station  of  authority  that  may  be  vacant — existing  inde 
pendent  of  incumbency.  His  argument  makes  it  unnecessary  to  con 
sider  any  of  the  provisions  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  but  I  have 
endeavored  to  furnish  additional  reasons  showing  that  Mr.  Cleve 
land  did  not  step  beyond  constitutional  limits. 

Section  1760,  which  refers  to  salaries,  and  which  has  been 
quoted  upon  the  theory  that  the  Executive  had  no  right  to  pay  Mr. 
Blount,  has  no  application  here.  It  is  as  follows : 

No  money  shall  be  paid  from  the  Treasury  to  any  person  acting  or  assum 
ing  to  act  as  an  officer,  civil,  military,  or  naval,  as  salary,  in  any  office  when 
the  office  is  not  authorized  by  some  previously  existing  law,  unless  such 
office  is  subsequently  sanctioned  by  law. 

"  Salary  "  is  defined  in  the  Century  Dictionary  as — 

The  recompense  or  consideration  stipulated  to  be  paid  to  a  person  periodic 
ally  for  services,  usually  a  fixed  sum,  to  be  paid  by  the  year,  half  year,  or 
quarter. 

I  regard  as  peculiar  and  unthoughtful  the  suggestion  that  the 
Executive  can  not  properly  use  the  fund  which  Congress  has  com 
mitted  to  his  discretion  for  the  purpose  of  defraying  such  expenses 
as  those  which  were  incurred  in  the  Blount  affair. 

The  curious  may  investigate  Anderson's  and  other  law  dic 
tionaries,  where  similar  definitions  will  be  found. 

Mr.  President,  I  take  it  that  even  if  we  concede  the  power  in 
Congress  to  limit  executive  functions  constitutionally  derived,  it  is 
clear  that  the  statutory  provisions  relied  upon  by  the  other  side 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  case.  I  have  already  remarked  that  the 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  187 

arguments  of  distinguished  Senators,  enforcing  a  different  view, 
simply  amount  to  this,  that  the  President  can  never  send  abroad  to 
ascertain  anything  which  it  is  necessary  and  proper  for  him  as 
President  to  learn. 

THE   CHARGES  AGAINST   MR.    BLOUNT. 

I  have  been  somewhat  surprised  that  derogatory  allusions  to 
the  character  of  an  eminent  American  whose  services  are  a  part 
of  the  history  of  this  country  have  been  made  by  Senators  during 
the  course  of  this  debate.  I  have  not  the  pleasure  of  Mr.  Blount's 
personal  acquaintance,  but  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  the  asper 
sions  cast  upon  him  are,  one  and  all,  beyond  the  evidence,  beyond 
the  necessity,  and  beyond  propriety. 

The  senior  Senator  from  Illinois  [Mr.  CUIXOM],  for  whom  I 
have  every  personal  regard  and  respect,  in  a  speech  made  in  this 
body,  in  referring  to  Mr.  Blount  used  this  astonishing  language : 

Passing  by  some  of  the  intermediate  steps  taken  by  the  United  States 
Government,  such  as  the  withdrawal  of  the  pending  treaty  from  this  Sen 
ate;  the  sending  of  a  special  commissioner  as  a  detective,  to  act  as  a  spy 
upon  a  foreign  government,  without  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate, 
then  in  session,  and  other  equally  ridiculous  blunders  of  Falstaffian  diplo 
macy,  we  have  found  a  government  in  Hawaii  recognized  by  the  world  in 
full  control  of  affairs.  There  was,  it  is  true,  an  American  flag  flying  in  Hon 
olulu,  to  give  earnest  of  the  will  of  the  United  States  that  American  inter 
ests  and  American  citizens  should  be  protected,  and  that  the  new  Govern 
ment  should  be  allowed  peacefully  to  conduct  its  administration  pending 
the  treat}  negotiations  with  the  United  States. 

Acting  under  instructions,  this  American  spy  performed  his  duty  by  fre 
quent  secret  reports  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  as  to  what  he  found  and  as 
to  what  he  did,  which  included  the  singular  incident  of  pulling  down  the 
American  flag. 

On  another  occasion,  in  earlier  history,  a  distinguished  citizen  of  New 
York  State,  in  his  capacity  as  a  member  of  the  Cabinet  of  President  Buchanan, 
issued  an  order  something  as  follows :  "  If  any  man  pull  down  the  American 
flag,  shoot  him  on  the  spot."  At  a  later  day,  by  the  order,  if  I  mistake  not, 
of  Gen.  Butler,  at  New  Orleans,  one  man  was  hanged  for  the  same  act  for 
which  another  now  receives  the  thanks  of  the  Executive  of  the  United  States. 

Another  event  in  Revolutionary  history  has  certain  parallel  lines  to  the 
story  of  the  President's  detective  in  Hawaii.  Something  over  a  hundred 
years  ago  a  British  officer  of  undoubted  character  and  reputation  was  selected 
as  the  special  commissioner  of  his  Government  to  act  the  part  which  would 
complete  the  betrayal  of  West  Point  and  other  American  forts  into  the  hands 
of  the  British.  Maj.  Andre,  the  distinguished  spy,  was  apprehended  and 
paid  the  penalty  with  his  life. 

Again  the  Senator  said: 

Just  look  at  it !  Purporting  to  be  an  ambassador  and  accredited  to  a  rec 
ognized  government,  his  secret  instructions,  not  even  made  known  to  this 
Senate,  if  obeyed  by  him,  put  him  in  the  attitude,  in  fact  and  effect,  of  the 
most  despicable  offenders  against  international  proprieties.  True,  his  offense 
was  that  of  his  superiors  merely,  but  the  punishment  is  meted  to  the, agent 
who  is  caught  in  the  act.  Maj.  Andre  'suffered  death;  Comissioner  Blount 
receives  compensation  from  the  United  States,  but  the  world  condemns  both 
him  and  his  employers. 

There  are  several  allusions  of  the  same  nature.  The  senior 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  HOAR]  also  stated  that  Mr. 
Blount  was  a  spy.  Is  it  possible  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  spy  " 
is  not  understood?  Is  it  possible  that  any  man,  upon  reflection,  will 
assert  that  he  who  in  open  daylight,  carrying  a  letter  of  authority 


188  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

which  he  delivers  to  the  supposed  adverse  party,  and  who  steps  in 
time  of  peace  within  a  foreign,  country  to  openly  act  under  that  let 
ter  and  with  the  consent  of  the  individuals  and  organization  regarding 
whom  his  investigation  is  to  be  made  and  who  proceeds  to  make  it, 
and  does  make  it,  under  their  eyes  and  sanction  —  is  it  possible  that 
anyone  can  so  far  forget  himself  as  to  declare  such  a  man  to  be  a  spy  ? 
It  is  in  conflict  with  the  record  to  state  that  Mr.  Blount  was  sent  to  act 
as  a  spy.  It  is  wholly  untrue  that  he  purported  to  be  an  ambassador. 
Nor  was  it  legally  possible  for  Mr.  Blount  to  do  any  act  as  a  spy,  nor 
did  he  demean  himself  in  the  slightest  degree  improperly. 

In  the  Hulsemann-Mann  case  the  President  had  sent  a  secret 
agent  to  a  friendly  power,  upon  whose  report  concerning  an  interne 
cine  struggle  he  expected  to  act.  Mr.  Webster,  in  defending  the  con 
duct  of  this  Government  against  the  charge  that  Mr.  Mann  was  a  spy, 
used  the  following  definition,  fully  applicable  to  the  present  contro 
versy.  He  said: 

A  spy  is  a  person  sent  by  one  belligerent  to  gain  secret  information  of 
the  forces  and  defenses  of  the  other,  to  be  used  for  hostile  purposes. 

Dr.  Von  Hoist  (4  Const.  History  United  States,  page  69),  in 
speaking  of  the  Hulsemann  incident,  says  that  it  was  "  nonsensical  and 
boldly  insulting  when  Hulsemann  asserted  that  Mann  had  been 
exposed  by  those  who  commissioned  him  to  the  fate  of  a  spy."  And 
the  same  writer,  in  discussing  Mr.  Webster's  defense  of  this  Govern 
ment,  remarks  that  the  points  at  issue  "  Webster  submitted  to  an 
exhaustive  examination,  and  refuted  his  opponent,  who  was  no  match 
for  him,  in  the  most  brilliant  manner." 

No  one  pretends  that  Mr.  Blount's  mission  was  secret. 

In  a  letter  concerning  which  so  much  has  been  said,  wherein 
Mr.  Cleveland  commended  Mr.  Blount  to  the  Hawaiian  Government, 
the  following  language  appears : 

I  have  made  choice  of  James  H.  Blount,  one  of  our  distinguished  citizens, 
as  my  special  commissioner  to  visit  the  Hawaiian  Islands  and  make  report 
to  me  concerning  the  present  'status  of  affairs  in  that  country. 

Mr.  Blount  was  publicly  engaged  in  collecting  evidence,  and  took 
the  testimony  of  parties  friendly  to  the  Provisional  Government,  and 
even  participating  in  it.  He  made  no  concealment  in  his  work;  was 
open  and  above  board,  and  the  assertion  that  he  was  a  spy  would,  if  it 
emanated  from  any  other  source  than  the  distinguished  Senators 
alluded  to,  be  denominated  as  absurd.  His  work  was  rendered  neces 
sary  by  the  very  project  of  annexation.  An  inquiry  was  practically 
solicited. 

A  spy  is  necessarily  a  secret  agent.  No  person  sent  to  this  or 
any  other  country  to  make  an  open  investigation  can  be  called  a  spy. 
And  if  Mr.  Blount's  mission  was  antagonistic  to  the  Provisional  Gov 
ernment,  every  member  of  it  knew  that  he  was  endeavoring  to  obtain 
the  facts  regarding  the  revolution  and  report  the  same  to  the  Presi 
dent  for  such  action  as  the  Executive  might  deem  it  desirable  to  take. 
An  imputation  of  this  sort  directed  against  an  honored  American  citi 
zen  can  not  be  too  strongly  condemned.  Partisanship  has  indeed 
exceeded  all  bounds  if  such  criticism  is  to  be  approved. 

During  Mr.  Blount's  mission  an  annexation  newspaper  charged 
him  by  indirection  with  misconduct  and  referred  to  his  communication 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  189 

with  the  Queen.  Mr.  Blount  at  once  wrote  to  President  Dole,  calling 
his  attention  to  the  imputation  (House  Executive  Document  47,  page 
65),  to  which  Mr.  Dole  responded  (Ibid.,  page  66)  and  said  among 
other  things : 

The  Government  sincerely  regrets  the  publication  referred  to  in  your 
communication  and  I  hasten  to  assure  you  that  it  is  in  no  way  responsible  for 
the  expressions  of  that  or  any  other  paper  and  thoroughly  disapproves  of 
anything  that  may  be  published  that  can  be  taken  as  implying  any  action 
on  your  part  that  is  not  entirely  consistent  with  your  mission. 

Mr.  Blount  was  long  connected  with  the  legislative  department 
of  this  Government.  He  represented  in  the  House  an  intelligent  con 
stituency  for  many  years,  and  if  the  Senators  who  have  attacked  him 
here  had  been  present  when  he  was  about  closing  his  career  in  that 
honorable  body,  and  heard  the  encomiums  showered  upon  him  by 
Republicans  and  Democrats  alike,  they  certainly  would  have  hesitated 
before  attempting  an  assault  upon  his  good  name.  One  of  the  ablest 
of  the  Republican  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  a  gentle 
man  of  long  experience  in  public  life,  and  who  occupied,  as  did  Mr. 
Blount,  a  position  upon  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs,  eloquently 
alluded  to  his  associate  in  terms  already  quoted  here,  if  I  mistake  not, 
by  the  Senator  from  Georgia  [Mr.  GORDON].  It  is  hardly  necessary 
to  repeat,  but  as  the  accusations  to  which  I  have  referred  have  been 
made  since,  I  shall  cite  a  few  expressions  utilized  by  Mr.  HITT  in  cer 
tifying  to  the  qualifications  and  the  character  of  Mr.  Blount.  Mr. 
HITT  said : 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  would  be  ungracious  to  let  these  remarks,  coming 
from  the  leader  of  the  other  side  of  the  House  [Mr.  HOLMAN],  pass  without 
some  response  from  this  side.  I  have  served  for  ten  years  with  the  hon 
orable  and  distinguished  gentleman,  the  chairman  of  the  committee  that 
has  brought  this  bill  to  which  the  committee  unanimously  consented  and  to 
which  the  House  will  now  assent.  The  term  of  my  service  has  been  only 
half  the  long  score  of  years  that  measure  his  honorable  career  as  a  legis 
lator,  and  older  members  might  more  fitly  speak,  but  I  can  not  see  the  time 
approach  when  he  is  to  leave  our  Hall  without  heartily  joining  as  one  mem 
ber  of  the  House  with  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Indiana  [Mr.  HOLM  AN] 
in  every  word  he  has  said  in  testimony  of  the  personal  worth,  of  the  high 
character,  of  the  industry,  of  the  energy  of  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Georgia,  and  I  will  mark  most  of  all  that  patriotism  above  party  that  inspired 
him  in  this  House  when  last  year  leading  the  great  committee  charged  to 
consider  the  affairs  and  interest  not  of  a  party,  but  of  a  whole  nation  embroiled 
in  sharp  dispute  with  a  foreign  power,  he  rose  with  the  occasion  and  proved 
himself  first  and  altogether  a  patriot  and  American  [applause]  ;  so  that 
a  foreigner,  looking  down  from  the  gallery  upon  this  Hall,  could  never-  have 
told  whether  he  was  a  Republican  or  a  Democrat,  but  would  have  known 
that  he  was  in  every  fiber  an  American.  [Applause.]  I  am  glad  of  the 
opportunity  to  add  this  single  word  in  echo  of  what  has  been  so  much  better 
said  by  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Indiana.  [Applause.] 

The  distinguished  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  HOAR]  said 
in  the  course  of  his  able  address : 

No,  Mr.  President,  this  Administration  has  been  hurried  into  this  trans 
action,  not  by  any  sense  of  justice  to  Hawaii,  not  by  any  desire  to  vindicate 
the  national  honor,  but  for  the  sake  of  making  what  has  turned  out  to  be  a 
weak,  impotent  attack  on  its  predecessor.  The  great  name  and  fame  of 
Benjamin  Harrison  have  left  a  sense  of  envy  and  discontent  in  some  bosoms. 

But  President  Harrison,  in  his  last  letter  of  acceptance,  alluded 
not  directly  but  plainly  in  terms  of  the  highest  praise  to  Mr.  Blount. 


190  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Having  spoken  of  the  difficulties  which  resulted  from  the  unfortu 
nate  transactions  at  Valparaiso,  and  having  criticised  the  Democratic 
party  for  its  platform  denunciation  of  his  conduct,  he  proceeded  thus : 

I  have  very  great  gratification  in  being  able  to  state  that  the  Democratic 
members  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs — 

Mr.  Blount  was  Chairman  of  the  committee  — 

responded  in  a  true  American  spirit.  I  have  not  hesitated  to  consult  freely 
with  them  about  the  most  confidential  and  delicate  affairs,  and  here  frankly 
confess  my  obligation  for  needed  co-operation. — President  Harrison's  letter 
of  acceptance,  September  3,  1892. 

Thus  it  will  be  observed  that  the  committee  referred  to  by  the 
late  President  in  his  letter  of  acceptance  was  presided  over  by  Mr. 
Blount,  and  yet  he  complimented  its  work  and  fairness.  Surely  if  it 
had  been  any  part  of  Mr.  Cleveland's  desire  or  purpose  to  cast  asper 
sions  upon  his  predecessor,  he  would  not  have  selected  for  the  dis 
charge  of  the  delicate  duties  of  the  place  one  who  had  received  such 
a  compliment  from  Mr.  Harrison's  hands  and  who  had  been  most 
impartial  and  judicial.  It  seems  to  me  that  any  allusion  to  Mr. 
Blount  upon  either  side  of  this  Chamber  ought  to  be  complimentary, 
and  can  not  be  otherwise  if  we  speak  within  the  domain  of  fact. 

Much  has  been  said  concerning  the  lowering  of  the  flag.  The 
able  Senator  from  Illinois  [Mr.  CULLOM]  states  in  effect  that  a  crime 
was  committed  when  Mr.  Blount  ordered  the  flag  taken  down.  I  shall 
in  a  few  minutes  call  attention  to  the  necessary  conclusion  that  when 
Secretary  Foster  disavowed  the  act  of  Mr.  Stevens  in  assuming  a 
protectorate  over  the  islands  he  clearly  disapproved  his  conduct  in 
raising  the  flag.  When  the  flag  was  raised  it  was  for  the  purpose  of 
assuming  control.  It  was  so  placed  to  be  the  emblem,  the  evidence, 
and  the  proof  that  the  United  States  asserted  dominant  influence. 

I  am  surprised  that  any  Senator  should  assert  that  it  is  a  crime 
to  take  down,  the  flag  when  it  is  placed  in  a  position  unfitted  for  its 
influence.  In  our  national  anthem  it  is  declared  that  — 

The  star-spangled  banner  in  triumph   shall  wave, 
O'er  the  land  of  the  free  and  the  home  of  the  brave. 

If  our  flag  were  allowed  to  wave  over  the  Hawaiian  Islands, 
would  it  wave  "'  o'er  the  land  of  the  free  "  at  this  moment  ?  It  is 
conceded  that  the  people  have  no  part  in  the  present  government. 
They  are  opposed  to  it.  They  are  not  free.  They  protest.  The  flag 
typifies  the  power  of  the  Republic.  It  heads  the  onward  movement 
of  rectitude.  Its  foes  are  wrong  and  dishonesty.  Under  the  flag 
Washington  marched  that  our  freedom  might  be  assured;  that  our 
people  might  have  their  way. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence  announced  a  kindred  purpose. 
The  Constitution  was  adopted  as  proof  that  the  Government  for  which 
it  provided  was  that  for  which  the  people  had  battled.  Our  banner 
was  not  chosen  to  wave  over  alien  lands  or  over  alien  peoples.  It  was 
intended  to  float  over  America's  battles ;  over  America's  manhood. 
You  are  prepared  to  bear  it  as  you  have  done,  over  river,  lake,  and 
sea,  over  prairie,  swamp,  and  mountain,  and  through  forest  jungle, 
that  it  may  be  rooted  where  success  means  the  preservation  of  the 
rights  for  which  your  fathers  fought;  but  you  surely  will  not  permit 
anyone  to  use  that  flag  to  lead  you  to  a  struggle  unpatriotic  or  unjust, 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  191 

or  for  ends  un-American.  You  will  strike  down  the  impious  hand 
thus  seeking  to  misuse  the  emblem  of  your  nation's  glory. 

Yes,  shoot  the  man  who  seeks  to  tear  down  the  flag  when  it 
waves  where  honor  calls  it;  but  remit  to  condign  punishment  the 
wretch  who  makes  patriotism  a  trade,  and  using  our  country's  banner 
for  ulterior  ends,  shields  dishonesty  and  protects  crime.  The  flag 
is  raised  for  justice.  It  must  be  taken  down  when  it  can  not  float 
without  injustice.  Its  mission  is  in  the  cause)  of  integrity.  It  is  dese 
crated  when  otherwise  devoted.  The  Stars  and  Stripes  must  not 
assist  in  the  establishment  of  a  government  against  the  popular  will, 
even  though  we  believe  that  a  change  will  bring  improvement.  We 
must  leave  to  the  erosive  processes  of  time  and  civilization  the  oblite 
ration  of  inferior  races  and  the  overthrow  of  corrupted  dynasties. 
Not  by  the  sword  of  this  Republic  or  before  her  victorious  banner 
shall  the  one  be  annihilated  or  the  other  subverted, 

Mr.  President,  it  appears  to  be  plain  that  the  issue  here  is,  Was 
the  flag  raised  on  a  proper  occasion?  An  attempt  to  stir  up  feeling 
and  partisanship  by  the  mere  statement  that  the  flag  was  taken  down 
disregards  the  proposition  that  it  was  placed  in  a  location  from  whence 
it  was  our  duty  to  remove  it. 

In  addition  to  the  criticisms  upon  Mr.  Blount's  conduct,  to  which 
I  have  made  some  reference,  it  is  said  that  he  assumed  command  of 
the  naval  forces  of  the  United  States.  Who  is  it  under  the  Consti 
tution  has  a  right  to  direct  the  Army  and  Navy  of  the  United  States  ? 
Can  this  Chamber  control  that  which  the  Constitution  declares  to  be 
within  the  scope  of  the  Executive?  Is  there  any  doubt  that  Mr. 
Cleveland  had  authority,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  to  dictate 
the  movements  of  the  Army  and  Navy  of  the  United  States  ?  Was 
this  function  lodged  in  Mr.  Stevens  alone  until  his  mission  was  ter 
minated  by  recall  ? 

Mr.  Cleveland,  as  President  of  the  United  States,  was  justified 
under  the  Constitution  in  transmitting  an  order,  directly  or  indirectly, 
tc  any  commander  of  the  Navy  or  Army  requiring  him  to  act  in 
accordance  with  Executive  desire  and  within  the  lines  of  his  duties 
pertaining  to  his  place,  and  Mr.  Blount,  as  his  messenger,  went  to  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  and  complied  with  the  Presidential  mandate.  He 
received  his  orders  from  the  hands  of  the  Executive,  to  whom  it  had 
been  given  that  it  might  be  delegated  without  the  necessity  of  con 
sultation  or  advice.  I  say  that  it  might  be  delegated,  because  no  one 
assumes  that  the  President  of  the  United  States,  acting  under  the 
provision  of  the  Constitution  now  being  considered,  must  do  so  per 
sonally,  without  the  aid  of  agent  or  messenger.  When,  Mr.  Cleveland 
gave  Mr.  Blount  the  authority  which  he  exercised,  the  President  was 
acting  within  the  domain  of  the  Constitution. 

The  precedents  cited  by  other  Senators  present  cases  of  far 
greater  doubt  than  this.  The  impartial  historian  who  examines  this 
matter  will  reach  the  conclusion  which  I  have  already  noted,  that 
pressed  to  its  logical  result  the  argument  upon  the  other  side  means 
that  in  no  case  can  the  President  of  the  United  States  send  abroad  to 
obtain  information. 

Much  has  been  said  in  the  course  of  this  debate  as  to  the  conduct 
of  Mr.  Stevens.  I  do  not  propose  to  review  in  detail  the  various 
transactions  which  have  already  received  such  careful  and  exhaustive 
consideration.  I  do  not  intend  to  recite  all  the  reasons  upon  which  I 


192  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

ground  my  contention  that  his  behavior  was  not  within  the  lines  of  his 
obligations. 

I  will  cite  in  a  general  way  a  few  of  the  more  prominent  and 
undisputed  matters  appearing  in  the  record. 

MR.   STEVENS  AS  A  DIPLOMAT  AND  WITNESS. 

The  distinguished  Senator  from  Indiana  [Mr.  TURPIE]  has 
called  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  circumstance  that  Mr.  Stevens, 
in  his  narration  of  the  events  which  have  been  under  discussion,  ten 
times  referred  to  the  late  sovereign  of  the  Hawaiian  kingdom  as  the 
fallen  Queen,  and  that  he  also  spoke  of  her  as  the  late  immoral  occu 
pant  of  the  throne,  and  the  Queen  and  her  paramour;  and  he  perti 
nently  asks  whether  these  are  the  choice  phrases  of  official  correspond 
ence  or  the  polished  language  of  diplomacy.  But  not  only  did  Mr. 
Stevens  use  such  language  since  he  abandoned  his  diplomatic  career, 
but  I  have  taken  occasion  to  notice  that  wherever  he  has  found  it  nec 
essary  to  allude  to  Wilson,  the  marshal  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  he 
has  displayed  the  most  remarkable  feeling  and  has  evinced  character 
istics  wholly  at  variance  with  the  demeanor  and  manner  of  a  diplomat, 
and  wholly  at  variance  with  the  sort  of  phraseology  usually  employed 
by  those  who  make  impartial  and  reliable  witnesses. 

I  concede  that  his  disposition,  his  mannerisms,  even  his  charac 
ter  should  not  affect  the  determinations  of  the  question  involved  in 
the  consideration  of  this  resolution,  except  in,  so  far  as  it  may  affect 
his  testimony  by  showing  his  bias  and  prejudice.  But  whenever  we 
examine  the  recital  of  a  witness,  whenever  in  a  matter  that  is  subject 
to  the  determination  of  a  court  we  are  confronted  with  an  individual 
testifying,  it  is  pertinent  to  determine  his  state  of  mind,  not  because 
the  result  in  that  particular  must  end  the  controversy,  but  because  it  is 
of  importance  in  reaching  a  true  judgment. 

On  May  21,  1892,  when  writing  to  Mr.  Blaine,  he  used  these 
expressions  descriptive  of  Wilson : 

"  The  Tahitian  half-caste  marshal,  the  former  reputed,  if  not  the  present 
paramour  of  the  Queen."  "  The  Tahitian  and  the  Queen."  "  Tahitian  favor 
ite."  "The  Queen  and  the  Tahitian  favorite."  (House  Report  243,  page  92.) 

And  on  September  9  of  the  same  year,  in  a  very  short  letter  to 
Mr.  Foster,  we  find  Wilson  alluded  to  twice  in  the  same  way 
(page  94). 

In  his  short  letter,  written  by  Mr.  Stevens  to  Mr.  Foster  on  Sep 
tember  14,  1892  (House  Report  No.  243,  page  95),  he  alludes  to 
Wilson  as  follows : 

"  The  Tahitian  half-caste  favorite  of  the  Queen."  "  The  Tahitian  favorite." 
"The  Queen  and  the  Tahitian."  "The  half-caste  Tahitian  favorite." 

Making  four  complimentary  references  of  this  sort  in  one  diplo 
matic  communication,  without  a  single  mention  of  the  name  or  the  title 
of  his  office. 

In  another  communication  upon  the  following  page  of  the  same 
report,  in  a  letter  from  Mr.  Stevens  to  Mr.  Foster,  dated  October  19, 
1892,  the  former  fails  to  mention  Wilson's  name  once,  but  designates 
him  as  follows : 

"  The  Tahitian  favorite  and  the  Queen."  "  The  Tahitian  marshal,  with 
all  the  abuse  and  corruption  which  surrounded  him  and  the  Queen."  "  The 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  193 

faction  of  the    Tahitian."     "The    Tahitian    favorite."     "The    Tahitian    favorite 
of  half-English   blood." 

In  another  diplomatic  letter,  same  report,  page  108,  written  by 
Mr.  Stevens  to  Mr.  Foster  on  October  31,  1892,  he  again  uses  similar 
phrases  freely  and  monotonously,  thus : 

"The  Tahitian  favorite."  "The  Queen  and  the  Tahitian."  "The  Tahi 
tian  favorite."  "  The  half-English  Tahitian  favorite  and  the  Queen."  "  The 
Tahitian  marshal."  "  The  present  Queen  and  her  favorite." 

After  the  so-called  revolution,  and  even  after  last  March,  Mr. 
Stevens  in  a  letter  to  Secretary  Gresham  (House  Report  243,  page 
150)  again  manifested  his  peculiar  disposition  and  the  singular  hos 
tility  which  he  entertains  toward  every  one  who  holds  views  differing 
from  his  own.  I  quote : 

UNITED  STATES  LEGATION,  Honolulu,  March  24,  1893. 

Sir :  In  my  previous  dispatches  I  have  given  some  facts  and  surmises 
regarding  Japanese  ambitions  as  to  these  islands.  I  presume  the  Department 
of  State  has  knowledge  of  the  elaborate  article  of  Sir  Edward  Arnold  in  the 
London  Telegraph  of  February  24;  strongly  anti-American  and  favoring 
the  surrender  of  Hawaii  to  Japanese  predominance  and  protection.  By  resi 
dence  in  Japan,  as  well  as  by  some  previously  acquired  taste  of  Calcutta 
and  Hindostan  life,  Arnold  seems  to  accept  readily  Japanese  morals  and 
civilization,  warmly  flatters  the  easily  susceptible  vanity  of  the  Japanese, 
the  real  Frenchmen  of  Asia. 

STEVENS  FROM  THE  BEGINNING  PLOTTED  AGAINST  THE  GOVERNMENT  TO 
WHICH  HE  HAD  BEEN  ACCREDITED. 

No  right-thinking  person  will  deny  that  it  was  the  duty  of  Mr. 
Stevens  when  he  entered  upon  his  trust  to  remember  his  obligations 
as  the  representative  of  a  great  Government  to  and  before  a  friendly 
court  to  which  he  bore  a  letter  of  credence  commending  him  to  the 
sovereign's  confidence.  It  is  admitted  in  this  debate  that  when  the 
revolutionary  movement  was  conceived,  when  those  who  inaugurated 
the  movement  were  considering  the  advisability  of  moving  forward, 
Mr.  Stevens  was  consulted  without  objection  on  his  part  as  to  what  he 
would  do. 

Let  us  suppose,  Mr.  President,  that  a  representative  of  this  Gov 
ernment  at  the  Court  of  St.  James  was  found  consorting  with  men 
plotting  the  overthrow  of  the  British  Empire,  and  stating  conditions 
under  which  he  would  recognize  the  conspirators  as  a  newly-estab 
lished  regime.  How  would  such  conduct  be  regarded  by  Great 
Britain,  and  by  the  civilized  world? 

Mr.  W.  O.  Smith,  a  member  of  the  Provisional  Government,  in 
speaking  of  the  transactions  of  January  15,  says: 

After  we  adjourned  Mr.  Thurston  and  I  called  upon  the  American  minister 
again  and  informed  him  of  what  was  being  done.  Among  other  things  we 
talked  over  with  him  what  had  better  be  done  in  case  of  our  being  arrested 
or  extreme  or  violent  measures  being  taken  by  the  monarchy  in  regard  to 
us.  We  did  not  know  what  steps  would  be  taken,  and  there  was  a  feeling  of 
great  unrest  and  sense  of  danger  in  the  community.  Mr.  Stevens  gave 
assurance  of  his  earnest  purpose  to  afford  all  the  protection  that  was  in  his 
power  to  protect  life  and  property.  He  emphasized  the  fact  that  while  he 
would  call  for  the  United  States  to  protect  life  and  property,  he  could  not 
recognize  any  government  until  actually  established. — Executive  Document 
47,  page  122. 


194  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.    Soper,   who   is   with  the   Provisional   Government,  testifies 
(House  Executive  Document  47,  page  506)  : 

Q.  Was  anything  said  about  his  [Stevens']  agreeing  to  recognize  the 
Provisional  Government  in  the  event  of  their  getting  possession  of  the  gov 
ernment  building  and  reading  their  proclamation — or  any  other  building? 

A.     You  mean  at  this  meeting? 

Q.    Yes. 

A.  I  can  not  say  positively  as  to  whether  I  understood  it  at  that  meeting, 
or  the  following  morning.  I  understood  he  would  recognize  a  de  facto  gov 
ernment. 

Q.     What  did  they  say  was  a  de  facto  government? 

A.  A  government  that  was  in  possession  of  the  government  building, 
archives,  treasury,  etc. 

Q.     The  treasury,  archives,  etc.,  were  in  the  government  building? 

A.     Yes. 

Q.  The  understanding  was  then  that  if  the  Provisional  Government  got 
possession  of  the  government  building  and  read  the  proclamation  that  then 
he  would  recognize  it  as  a  de  facto  government? 

A.     I  believe  that  was  the  understanding. 

Is  there  anything  in  diplomatic  history,  is  there  anything  in  any 
work  on  the  subject  of  international  jurisprudence  which  gives  such  a 
definition  of  a  de  facto  government?  It  was  not  to  be  a  government 
in  possession  of  the  power  and  substance  of  the  state  after  the  oblite 
ration  of  a  former  dynasty,  but  a  de  facto  government  according  to 
Stevens  meant  a  handful  of  men  in  possession  of  certain  specified 
structures.  Our  minister  virtually  said  to  those  who  were  contemplat 
ing  the  overthrow  of  the  Queen  to  whom  he  had  been  introduced  as  a 
friend,  "  Whenever  you  seize  the  buildings  which  I  name  and  thus 
open  the  fight  and  make  success  probable  I  will  recognize  you,  that 
my  dream  of  conquest  may  be  realized.  I  will  do  all  I  can  Messrs. 
Conspirators  to  protect  you." 

The  evidence  upon  this  subject  has  been  already  fully  discussed 
and  presented,  and  I  do  not  intend  to  elaborate  further  upon  it. 

Mr.  President,  I,  for  one,  deny  that  there  is  any  authority  under 
any  system  of  enlightened  or  civilized  usage  justifying  an  envoy  to  a 
foreign  court  in  holding  any  intercourse  or  making  any  bargain  with 
or  suggesting  any  contingency  as  a  basis  for  action  on  his  part  at  the 
dictation  or  inquiry  of  insurgents  to  be.  This  behavior  of  our  minis 
ter  is  perhaps  to  some  extent  overlooked  because  we  are  dealing  with 
a  feeble  people,  with  a  few  little  islands  in  the  sea,  with  a  race  incapa 
ble  of  coping  with  us ;  but  Mr.  Cleveland,  with  eloquence  and  unde 
niable  logic,  has  taken  the  true  position  that  we  must  act  upon  the 
basis  of  justice  and  not  with  reference  to  our  strength  or  the  weak 
ness  of  those  with  whom  we  are  brought  in  contact. 

Mr.  President,  nearly  one  hundred  years  ago,  in  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States,  Governor  Morris  said :  "  I  do  not  think  that  the 
universe  presents  a  spectacle  more  sublime  than  that  of  a  powerful 
nation  kneeling  before  the  altar  of  justice  and  sacrificing  there  alike 
her  passion  and  her  pride."  I  find  here  no  reason  for  an  American, 
with  the  honor  and  power  of  this  nation,  in  his  keeping,  to  hesitate 
to  admit  a  wrong  done  under  the  cloak  of  national  authority  by  one 
who  has  violated  his  faith  or  to  hasten  to  redress  the  outrage.  Nay, 
I  feel  as  though  it  were  my  duty  in  so  far  as  I  am  individually  con 
cerned  to  be  more  punctilious  and  more  scrupulously  fair  in  dealing 
with  inferior  nations  than  in  transactions  with  powerful  states  com 
petent  to  guard  their  interests.  The  first  can  protect  themselves,  the 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  195 

others  are  at  our  mercy  and  dependent  upon  our  honesty  and  magna 
nimity. 

Mr.  President,  our  minister  was  not  justified  under  diplomatic 
usage  in  recognizing  the  Provisional  Government  until  it  was  abso 
lutely  in  possession  of  the  power  of  the  state  and  until  it  exercised 
actual  dominion.  While  the  matter  was  in  active  dispute,  as  I  shall 
presently  show,  and  until  the  Government  was  at  least  tacitly  accepted 
by  the  people,  no  recognition  should  have  been  made.  I  am  aware 
that  Mr.  Stevens  represented  to  President  Harrison  that  when  he 
acted  the  Queen  had  been  overthrown.  Documentary  evidence  dem 
onstrates  that  President  Harrison  was  deceived.  In  his  message  to 
Congress  concerning  the  proposed  treaty,  he  says : 

At  the  time  the  Provisional  Government  took  possession  of  the  govern 
ment  buildings,  no  troops  or  officers  of  the  United  States  were  present  or 
took  any  part  whatever  in  the  proceedings.  No  public  recognition  was  accorded 
to  the  Provisional  Government  by  the  United  States  minister  until  after 
the  Queen's  abdication  and  when  they  were  in  effective  possession  of  the 
government  buildings,  the  archives,  the  treasury,  the  barracks,  the  police 
station  and  all  the  potential  machinery  of  the  Government. 

Mr.  Stevens's  records  show  that  before  4  p.m.  of  the  I7th  the 
Provisional  Government  had  been  recognized  (House  Executive 
Document  No.  4,  page  123)  : 

[Extract  from  records  of  the  United  States  legation.] 

CORRESPONDENCE    WITH     HAWAIIAN     GOVERNMENT. 

UNITED  STATES  LEGATION,  Honolulu,  January  17,  1893. 

About  4  to  5  p.m.  of  this  date — am  not  certain  of  the  precise  time — the  note 
on  file  from  the  four  ministers  of  the  deposed  Queen,  inquiring  if  I  had  rec 
ognized  the  Provisional  Government,  came  to  my  hands,  while  I  was  lying 
sick  on  the  couch.  Not  far  from  5  p.m. — I  did  not  think  to  look  at  the  watch — 
I  addressed  a  short  note  to  Hon.  Samuel  Parker,  Hon.  William  H.  Cornwell, 
Hon.  John  F.  Colburn,  and  Hon.  A.  P.  Peterson — no  longer  regarding  them 
ministers— informing  them  that  I  had  recognized  the  Provisional  Govern 
ment. 

JOHN  L.  STEVENS. 
United  States  Minister. 

Lieut.  Draper  certifies  that  the  police  station  mentioned  by  Presi 
dent  Harrison's  message  was  not  turned  over  until  hours  after  the 
recognition  by  Stevens. 

He  says   (House  Executive  Document  No.  47,  page  63)  : 

STATEMENT  BY   LIEUT.   DRAPER. 

May  5,  1893,  Herbert  L.  Draper,  lieutenant  Marine  Corps,  attached  to 
Boston : 

I  was  at  the  United  States  consulate-general  at  the  time  the  Provisional 
Government  troops  went  to  the  station  house  and  it  was  turned  over  to 
them  by  Marshal  Wilson.  It  was  about  half-past  seven  o'clock.  The  station 
house  is  near  the  consulate-general  on  the  same  street.  As  soon  as  it  happened 
I  telephoned  it  to  the  ship.  1  wanted  my  commanding  officer  to  know,  as  I 
regarded  it  as  an  especially  important  thing. 

I  was  the  commanding  officer  at  the  consulate-general.  There  was  no 
other  United  States  officer  there  at  the  time  excepting  myself. 

The  above  is  a  correct  statement. 

HERBERT  L.  DRAPER, 
First  Lieutenant,  United  States  Marine  Corps. 

Commander  Swinburne's  letter  (House  Executive  Document  No. 
47,  page  57)  shows  the  importance  attached  by  Capt.  Wiltse  to  the 


196  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

police  station,  and  is  direct  to  the  effect  that  the  same  was  not  in  the 
possession  of  the  Provisional  Government  until  after  Stevens  had 
acted : 

MR.    SWINBURNE  TO   MR.   BLOUNT. 

HONOLULU,  HAWAIIAN  ISLANDS,  May  3,  1893. 

Sir:  In  response  to  your  verbal  request  for  a  written  communication 
from  me  regarding  certain  facts  connected  with  the  recognition  of  the  Pro 
visional  Government  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  by  the  United  States  minis 
ter  to  that  country  on  the  afternoon  of  January  17,  1893,  I  have  to  state  as 
follows  : 

On  the  afternoon  in  question  I  was  present  at  an  interview  between  Capt. 
Wiltse,  commanding  the  Boston,  who  was  at  that  time  present  in  his  official 
capacity  with  the  battalion  then  landed  in  Honolulu,  and  Mr.  Dole  and  other 
gentlemen  representing  the  present  Provisional  Government,  in  the  execu 
tive  chamber  of  the  government  building.  During  the  interview  we  were 
informed  that  the  party  represented  by  the  men  there  present  was  in  com 
plete  possession  of  the  government  building,  the  archives,  and  the  treasury,  and 
that  a  provisional  government  had  been  established  by  them. 

In  answer  Capt.  Wiltse  asked  if  their  government  had  possession  of  the 
police  station  and  barracks.  To  this  the  reply  was  made  that  they  had  not 
possession  then,  but  expected  to  hear  of  it  in  a  few  minutes,  or  very  soon. 
To  this  Capt.  Wiltse  replied,  "  Very  well,  gentlemen,  I  can  not  recognize  you 
as  a  de  facto  government  until  you  have  possession  of  the  police  station  and 
are  prepared  to  guarantee  protection  to  life  and  property,"  or  words  to  that 
effect.  Here  our  interview  was  interrupted  by  other  visitors,  and  we  with 
drew  and  returned  to  the  camp  at  Arion  Hall.  As  far  as  I  can  recollect,  this 
must  have  been  about  5  o'clock  p.m. 

About  half  past  6  Capt.  Wiltse  left  the  camp,  and  as  he  did  so  he  informed 
me  that  the  United  States  minister  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands  had  recognized 
the  Provisional  Government  established  by  the  party  in  charge  of  the  gov 
ernment  building  as  the  de  facto  government  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands.  About 
half  past  7  p.m.  I  was  informed  by  telephone  by  Lieut.  Draper,  who  was  then 
in  charge  of  a  squad  of  marines  at  the  United  States  consulate,  that  the 
citizen  troops  had  taken  possession  of  the  police  station,  and  that  everything 
was  quiet. 

Very  respectfully, 

WM.   SWINBURNE, 
Lieutenant-Commander,  United  States  Navy. 

Hon.  J.  H.  Blount. 

Special  Commissioner  of  the   United  States. 

But  the  letter  of  Mr.  Dole  (House  Executive  Document  No.  47, 
page  124),  thanking  Mr.  Stevens  for  his  interference,  is  absolutely 
conclusive.  It  is  thus  worded : 

GOVERNMENT  BUILDING,  Honolulu,  January   17,  1893. 

Sir:  I  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  valued  communication  of  this  day, 
recognizing  the  Hawaiian  Provisional  Government,  and  express  deep  apprecia 
tion  of  the  same. 

We  have  conferred  with  the  ministers  of  the  late  government,  and  have 
made  demand  upon  the  marshal  to  surrender  the  station  house. 

We  are  not  actually  yet  in  possession  of  the  station  house;  but  as  night 
is  approaching  and  our  forces  may  be  insufficient  to  maintain  order,  we  request 
the  immediate  support  of  the  United  States  forces,  and  would  request  that 
the  commander  of  the  United  States  forces  take  command  of  our  military 
forces,  so  that  they  may  act  together  for  the  protection  of  the  city. 
Respectfully,  yours, 

SANFORD  B.  DOLE, 
Chairman  Executive  Council. 

Therefore  it  must  be  assumed  that  the  surrender  of  the  Queen 
did  not  take  place  until  after  Stevens  had  been  thanked  by  Mr.  Dole 
for  recognizing  a  government  which  did  not  exist,  but  whose  chances 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  197 

Mr.  Stevens  had  much  improved.  This  is  in  accordance  with  the 
Queen's  protests  made  at  the  very  time  and  constituting  a  part  of  the 
res  gestae.  She  said  (House  Executive  Document  No.  47,  page  120)  : 

I,  Liliuokalani,  by  the  grace  of  God  and  under  the  constitution  of  the 
Hawaiian  Kingdom,  Queen,  do  hereby  solemnly  protest  against  any  and  all 
acts  done  against  myself  and  the  constitutional  Government  of  the  Hawaiian 
Kingdom  by  certain  persons  claiming  to  have  established  a  Provisional  Gov 
ernment  of  and  for  this  Kingdom. 

That  I  yield  to  the  superior  force  of  the  United  States  of  America,  whose 
minister  plenipotentiary,  his  excellency  John  L.  Stevens,  has  caused  United 
States  troops  to  be  landed  at  Honolulu,  and  declared  that  he  would  support 
the  said  Provisional  Government. 

Now  to  avoid  any  collision  of  armed  forces  and  perhaps  the  loss  of  life,  I 
do,  under  this  protest,  and  impelled  by  said  force,  yield  my  authority  until 
such  time  as  the  Government  of  the  United  States  shall,  upon  the  facts 
being  presented  to  it,  undo  the  action  of  its  representative  and  reinstate  me  in 
authority  which  I  claim  as  the  constitutional  sovereign  of  the  Hawaiian 
Islands. 

Done  at  Honolulu  this   I7th  day  of  January,  A.  D.   1893. 

LILIUOKALANI,  R. 

SAMUEL   PARKER, 

Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 
WM.   H.    CORNWELL, 

Minister  of  Finance. 
JNO.  F.  COLBURN, 

Minister  of  the  Interior. 
A.  P.  PETERSON, 

A  ttorney-GeneraL 
S.  B.  DOLE,  Esq.,  and  others, 

Composing  the  Provisional  Government  of  the  Haivaiian  Islands. 

Admitting  that  Mr.  Stevens's  Christian  soul  was  justly  filled  with 
sorrow  at  the  transactions  of  this  foreign  court,  and  that  he  longed 
to  establish  a  better  system,  yet  he  was  sent  to  the  Queen  as  a  friendly 
representative.  He  was  possessed  of  two  characters,  in  one  of  which 
his  individual  sentiments  while  entertained  should  have  been  con 
cealed,  and  in  the  other  he,  as  the  agent  of  the  United  States  carrying 
credentials  directed  to  the  Queen,  owed  her  that  respect  which  his  own 
Government  accorded.  He  was  bound  to  find  her  a  sovereign  as  long 
as  she  acted  as  such  and  until  she  was  clearly  and  absolutely  deposed, 
unless  the  power  commissioning  him  otherwise  directed.  It  was  not 
a  question  whether  Liliuokalani  had  possession  of  100  or  1000  acres; 
whether  the  insurgents  held  1,000,000  acres  or  i  acre.  Was  the 
Queen  still  maintaining  herself?  Was  there  a  struggle?  She  had 
not  resigned  the  scepter.  On  the  contrary  there  stood  around  her 
armed  men  obedient  to  her  mandates. 

Conceding  for  the  sake  of  argument  (against  my  conviction, 
however),  that  in  an  engagement  she  would  have  been  defeated,  yet 
it  was  not  for  Mr.  Stevens  to  solve  the  problem.  It  was  to  be  set 
tled  without  his  troops  or  his  proclamations.  Stevens  could  not  peer 
into  the  future.  He  had  no  right  to  anticipate.  It  was  his  business 
to  wait  and  be  governed  by  the  demonstrations  of  his  senses.  It  was 
not  his  place  as  the  representative  of  this  Government  to  declare  it 
probable  that  Dole  would  win,  and  therefore  to  anticipate  events  and 
recognize  him.  Recognition  was  important  and  even  determinative. 
Not  only  was  impartiality  required,  but  he  was  compelled  to  recollect 
that  as  a  minister  he  must  not  be  influenced  by  personal  preferences 
to  step  outside  the  lines  of  his  mission. 


198  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

It  is  indisputable,  I  take  it,  that  while  there  is  any  conflict  the 
minister  must  remain  inactive  as  to  the  recognition  of  an  insurgent. 
In  this  instance  the  impartial  investigator  must  find  that  when  Mr. 
Stevens  came  to  the  rescue  there  was  still  a  conflict;  that  there  had 
been  no  surrender;  that  Liliuokalani  claimed  to  be  Queen,  and  that 
there  was  force  about  her  when  our  minister,  backed  by  the  military 
power  of  the  United  States,  declared  in  favor  of  a  contestant  to  whom 
he)  was  not  accredited  by  his  master,  the  United  States  of  America. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  should  like  to  ask  the  Senator  from  California 
a  question  or  two  if  it  will  be  no  interruption  to  him. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     No,  sir;  it  will  be  no  interruption. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  understand  the  Senator  to  lay  down  the  doc 
trine  that  there  being  a  change  of  government  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands, 
Mr.  Stevens  ceased  to  be  the  representative  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  in  those  islands  without  reference  to  the  will  of  either 
his  own  Government  or  the  Government  of  Hawaii.  Am  I  correct? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  No ;  my  proposition  is  this :  In  all 
of  the  authorities  which  I  have  cited  and  will  cite  (and  there  are  a 
great  many  of  them)  — in  fact  by  all  publicists  of  whom  I  have  any 
knowledge  —  the  rule  is  laid  down  that  when  there  is  a  radical  change 
in  the  form  of  government  — 

Mr.  TELLER.  The  Senator  need  not  read  it  over  again.  I  will 
take  his  statement. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  prefer,  however,  to  make  my 
answer  in  my  own  way,  if  the  Senator  will  excuse  me. 

Mr.  TELLER.     Certainly;  only  I  heard  his  authority  read. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Senator  to  the  statement  that  he  may  examine  it  at  his  leisure  if  he 
may  not  have  heard  my  reference.  The  authorities  upon  the  subject 
are  very  fully  collated  in  Mr.  Pomeroy's  work  on  International  Law, 
page  277,  where  (and  my  investigation  appears  to  bear  this  out)  it  is 
stated  that  when  there  is  any  radical  change  in  the  form  of  govern 
ment  to  which  the  diplomatic  agent  is  accredited  his  power  ceases 
until  in  some  manner  his  home  government  has  recognized  the  new 
authority,  it  being,  however,  his  duty  to  protect  as  far  as  he  can  his 
own  country's  interest  pending  the  decision. 

Mr.  TELLER.  Then  I  understand  the  Senator  denies  the  right 
not  only  of  our  own  minister  but  of  all  other  ministers  to  recognize 
that  as  the  de  facto  government,  as  they  did,  as  the  Senator  must  be 
aware. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  deny  the  right  of  Mr.  Stevens  in 
this  particular  case  to  do  so.  He  might  declare  his  recognition,  but 
the  power  and  validity  of  his  act  must  depend  upon  its  ratification  by 
the  home  Executive,  in  whom  the  power  to  recognize  is,  under  all  the 
authorities,  exclusively  vested. 

Mr.  TELLER.  The  Senator,  I  suppose,  is  aware  that  all  the 
diplomatic  representatives  there  promptly  recognized  that  Govern 
ment  ? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  "  Promptly  "  is  the  word  used  by 
Mr.  Stevens,  which  meant  the  next  day. 

Mr.  TELLER.  That  is  the  fact,  too,  is  it  not  ?  They  did  do  it 
the  next  day. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  Yes.  They  gave  it  a  qualified  rec 
ognition  in  almost  every  case. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  199 

Mr.  TELLER.  The  Senator  says  it  was  not  a  de  facto  govern 
ment.  Does  the  Senator  mean  to  say  that  it  is  not  a  de  facto  govern 
ment  to-day? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     No,  sir. 

Mr.  TELLER.  Will  the  Senator  tell  us  when  it  became  a  de 
facto  government? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  would  say  it  became  a  de  facto 
government  when,  it  was  in  possession  of  the  governmental  power  of 
the  Hawaiian  Islands,  which  it  was  not  in  possession  of  at  the  time 
Mr.  Stevens  recognized  it. 

Mr.  TELLER.  Oh,  I  beg  the  Senator's  pardon.  He  did  not 
recognize  it  until  the  day  the  representatives  of  the  other  governments 
did,  and  the  Queen  had  then  formally  abdicated. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  The  Senator  is  mistaken.  Let  me 
state  to  the  Senator  that  Mr.  Dole,  in  his  letter  thanking  Mr.  Stevens 
for  his  recognition,  admits  that  he  is  not  in  possession  of  the  entire 
power,  but  expects  to  seize  the  police  headquarters ;  and  upon  his  great 
expectations  the  recognition  was  had. 

Mr.  TELLER.  Then,  will  the  Senator  tell  us  exactly  when  it 
became  a  de  facto  government,  so  that  we  may  see  what  our  relations 
were  from  that  time  on? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  think,  if  the  Senator  will  wait 
until  I  conclude  — 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  will  not  dispute  the  question  of  fact  with  the 
Senator.  I  want  him  to  give  me  the  date  when  it  became  a  de  facto 
government,  if  he  can  do  so. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  am  unable  to  give  the  Senator 
the  date  when  it  became  a  de  facto  government,  but  it  became  such, 
as  I  have  already  said,  whenever  it  had  entire  dominion,  when  Liliuo- 
kalani  ceased  to  exercise  any  authority,  and  when  our  flag  was  taken 
down  and  we  were  no  longer  in  command  of  the  islands.  From  that 
time  I  think  it  became  a  de  facto  government,  because  I  know  of  no 
other  power  exercising  governmental  functions. 

Mr.  TELLER.  Was  it  a  de  facto  government  when  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  commissioned  Mr.  Blount  to  go  there,  and 
when  the  President  of  the  United  States  also  recognized  Mr. 
Stevens  as  the  minister  of  the  United  States  Government? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     What  President? 

Mr.  TELLER.     President  Cleveland. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     When? 

Mr.  TELLER.     In,  March,  1893. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  shall  be  very  happy  to  answer  all 
these  questions  in  the  progress  of  my  remarks,  but  I  do  not  recollect 
the  exact  date  when  every  particular  transaction  occurred.  So  I 
decline  to  fix  them.  I  will  say  further  that  I  must  not  suppose,  upon 
these  matters  of  fact  concerning  which  I  am  being  catechised,  the 
Senator  from  Colorado  lacks  any  information. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  do  not  desire  to  catechise  the  Senator,  but  the 
Senator  has  laid  down  some  principles  of  law  which  I  think  he  can 
hardly  sustain,  and  I  wished  to  attract  his  attention  to  them. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  am  happy  to  have  my  attention 
attracted  to  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  TELLER.  It  is  important  to  determine  when  that  govern 
ment  had  any  existence  which  could  be  recognized.  Of  course  it 


200  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

had  at  some  time  or  other,  but  I  want  to  know  when.  I  wish 
to  know  of  the  Senator  whether  he  claims,  as  a  question  of  inter 
national  law,  that  the  Government,  having  recognized  another  gov 
ernment  as  an  existing  government,  it  is  within  the  power  of  the 
Government  at  a  subsequent  time  to  withdraw  that  recognition? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  have  discussed  that  heretofore. 
Ordinarily  I  should  say  not,  unless — 

Mr.  TELLER.  Has  the  Senator  any  reference  to  any  prece 
dent  of  that  kind  in  his  extensive  study? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  No,  sir;  but  I  have  no  reference 
to  any  government  created  as  was  this,  and  to  no  such  circumstances 
as  those  under  which  it  was  called  into  existence.  Hence  I  have 
no  facts  to  which  to  apply  any  precise  rule  with  which  I  am 
acquainted.  Each  case  must  be  judged  upon  its  facts,  and  I  am 
judging  this  case  upon  its  facts. 

Mr.  TELLER.  The  Senator,  I  understand,  has  laid  down  the 
rule  correctly,  that  it  is  the  President  of  the  United  States  who  must 
recognize  a  government. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  agree  with  him  in  that.  Does  the  Senator 
hold  that  when  one  Executive  has  recognized  a  Government  his  suc 
cessor  may  revoke  that  order? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  am  not  confronted  with  that 
proposition,  since  it  has  not  been  done,  but  under  ordinary  circum 
stances  I  would  say  no.  But  if  it  should  turn  out  that  the  preceding 
Executive  had  been  deceived  by  the  beneficiaries  of  the  recognition  in 
material  matters,  I  have  no  doubt  it  would  be  the  duty  of  this  Govern 
ment  to  sever  diplomatic  relations,  taking  care  at  all  times  to  guard 
the  interests  of  third  parties. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  wish  to  ask  the  Senator  if  he  thinks  now  that 
it  is  still  the  duty  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  undo 
what  he  says  Minister  Stevens  has  improperly  done?  Does  he  think 
it  is  still  our  duty  to  return  the  Queen  to  power? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     No. 

Mr.  TELLER.  Then  I  should  like  to  further  inquire  when  it 
ceased  to  be  our  duty  so  to  do? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  am  thoroughly  willing  to  state 
to  the  Senator  anything  regarding  his  present  duty,  but  as  to  past 
obligations  upon  this  subject  or  the  minute  when  it  ceased  to  be  his 
duty  or  my  duty  to  do  a  particular  act,  I  decline  at  this  moment  to  be 
interrogated.  I  am  not  very  good  at  remembering  dates,  and  I  do 
not  propose  to  be  interrogated  upon  a  subject  that  may  call  into 
exercise  that  faculty  which  I  should  like  to  have  more  fully  developed 
than  it  is.  I  will  state  to  the  Senator,  since  his  remark  has  called 
for  it,  that  I  will  even  go  as  far  as  he  did  upon  the  floor  the  other 
day  —  and  I  have  authority  to  sustain  me  —  that  for  all  practical 
purposes  a  de  facto  government  is  a  de  jure  government.  (Fer 
guson's  Manual  of  International  Law,  volume  I,  page  83.)  The 
Senator  stated  this  proposition  upon  another  occasion,  and  I  do  not 
doubt  its  correctness,  though  I  believe  others  differ  from  him. 

I  will  further  remark  as  the  Senator  from  Colorado  will  dis 
cover,  if  I  am  permitted  to  conclude,  that  I  do  not  oppose  either 
branch  of  the  pending  resolution.  The  phraseology,  perhaps,  may 
be  altered.  I  am  not  speaking  of  that,  nor  do  I  know  that  I  care, 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  201 

but  I  am  in  favor  of  doing  that  which  the  Senator  declared  very 
lately  ought  to  be  done.  I  am  in  favor  of  declaring,  first,  that  it  is 
against  our  policy  to  take,  or  at  least  that  we  will  not  take,  any  steps 
looking  to  the  annexation  of  these  islands;  and  secondly,  that  as  the 
Provisional  Government  has  been  recognized  and  has  endured  so  long 
that  we  will  continue  that  recognition  and  leave  the  Hawaiian  people 
to  solve  disputed  matters  of  government  as  they  see  fit.  If  the 
Senator  had  been  here  when  I  commenced  my  remarks,  he  would 
have  heard  me  read  three  or  four  authorities  from  well-known 
writers  upon  this  point. 

Mr.  TELLER.     Will  the  Senator  allow  me  to  interrupt  him? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     Certainly. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  have  never  made  any  suggestion  that  I  am 
not  in  favor  of  annexation, 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  understood  the  Senator  to  say 
that  he  is  in  favor  of  the  pending  resolution. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  said  I  am  in  favor  of  the  pending  resolution 
except  the  first  part  of  it. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  Of  course,  the  Senator  knows  I  do 
not  wish  to  attribute  to  him  virtues  which  he  has  not. 

Mr.  TELLER.     I  only  want  to  put  in  my  caveat. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  have  no  objection  at  all  to  the 
interruption,  because  I  have  always  found  that  the  Senator's  state 
ments,  especially  of  legal  propositions,  are  in  accord  with  me,  and 
this  is  rather  complimentary  to  me  perhaps,  and  I  do  not  think  that 
he  will  differ  from  me  when  he  considers  what  I  have  said  and  when 
he  hears  me  through. 

Mr.  President,  when  the  Senator  interrupted  me  I  was  discuss 
ing  Mr.  Stevens's  conduct.  I  wish  to  say  that  I  agree  with  my  friend 
from  Colorado  that  the  propriety  of  the  passage  of  the  resolution 
before  us  does  not  depend  upon  Mr.  Stevens's  behavior,  whether  it 
was  good,  bad  or  indifferent.  But  I  am  discussing  the  subject  because 
assertions  have  been  made  by  Senators  upon  the  other  side  which  I 
conceive  are  not  warranted,  which  have  resulted  in  injustice  to 
patriotic  citizens  who  are  doing  their  utmost  to  further  the  interests 
of  our  country  and  to  keep  it  in  the  path  of  rectitude.  Hence  if  I 
shall  say  aught  that  is  not  absolutely  and  directly  material  to  this 
particular  resolution,  it  must  be  remembered  that  it  is  in  response 
to  arguments  which  have  been  made  upon  the  other  side. 

I  have  stated  that  Mr.  Stevens  erred  when  he  recognized  the 
existence  of  a  government  at  a  time  when  the  fortunes  of  war  had 
not  indubitably  settled  the  struggle.  The  recognition  of  a  revolution 
ary  government  by  a  minister  to  which  attention  has  been  called, 
differs  materially  from  that  by  the  Executive.  The  one  is  the  exer 
cise  of  an  assumed  function  which  depends  for  its  efficacy  upon 
subsequent  approval  —  sub  spe  rati.  In  several  instances  in  'our 
-diplomatic  history,  notably  in  connection  with  our  transactions  with 
France,  our  minister  recognized  a  revolutionary  government,  and  his 
act  was  ratified  by  the  Executive.  But  in  the  case  before  us,  we  find 
a  minister  who  recognizes  not  an  undisputed  government,  but  one 
that  is  disputed,  not  an  authority  holding  dominion  uncontested  and 
possessed  of  the  effective  power  of  the  state,  but  a  faction  engaged  in 
a  conflict  and  constituting,  in  my  judgment,  the  weak  side  of  the  fight. 

Mr.    Stevens   in   his   many   letters   to   the   Department   of   State 

14 


202  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

evinced  a  disposition  to  seize  the  islands  regardless  of  the  popular  wilL 
On  August  20,  1891  (House  Report,  page  243),  Mr.  Stevens 
informed  Secretary  Elaine  that  it  might  be  well  to  have  a  warship 
on  hand  soon.  In  all  of  the  letters  from  which  I  have  quoted  as 
to  Mr.  Stevens's  peculiar  expressions  there  is  contained  a  manifest 
spirit  of  opposition  to  the  existing  Government,  and  a  desire  for  its 
overthrow.  Without  pausing  here,  it  will  be  enough  to  make  a  mere 
reference  to  these  communications. 

On  October  31,  1892  (House  Report,  page  108),  Mr.  Stevens 
writes  to  Mr.  Foster  thus : 

There  are  strong  reasons  for  the  belief  that  were  it  not  for  the  presence  of 
the  American  naval  force  in  the  harbor  the  Tahitian  marshal  and  his  gang 
would  induce  the  Queen  to  attempt  a  coupe  d'etat  by  proclaiming  a  new  con 
stitution,  taking  from  the  Legislature  the  power  to  reject  ministerial  appoint 
ments. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Mr.  Stevens  understood  that  the  naval 
force  of  the  United  States  might  be  used  to  effect  the  decision  of  the 
local  government  upon  constitutional  matters. 

Stevens  disclosed  his  plans  and  ambitious  designs  in  his  cele 
brated  letter  to  Mr.  Foster. 

Mr.  GEORGE.  What  was  the  date  of  the  letter  from  which 
the  Senator  is  about  to  read? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  The  2Oth  of  November,  1892, 
He  says: 

An  intelligent  and  impartial  examination  of  the  facts  can  hardly  fail  to 
lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  relations  and  policy  of  the  United  States  toward 
Hawaii  will  soon  demand  some  change,  if  not  the  adoption  of  decisive 
measures,  with  the  aim  to  secure  American  interests  and  future  supremacy 
by  encouraging  Hawaiian  development  and  aiding  to  promote  responsible 
government  in  these  islands. 

He  then  proceeds  to  discuss  the  many  supposed  advantages  to 
accrue  to  the  United  States  from  the  acquisition  of  the  Hawaiian 
Islands.  At  that  time  there  was  no  Provisional  Government.  When 
Mr.  Stevens  suggested  absorbing  the  islands  and  the  assumption  of 
supremacy  over  them  there  was  no  domestic  struggle  in  progress. 
There  was  not  even  a  commotion,  as  took  place  when  the  troops. 
were  landed.  There  was  no  opportunity  for  him  to  exercise  his 
remarkable  government-making  proclivities  by  acknowledging  the 
nationality  of  a  handful  of  men  and  using  the  naval  strength  of  his 
Government  to  enforce  their  claims.  But  affairs  were  comparatively 
quiet;  there  was  no  turmoil.  Yet  he  proceeded  to  argue  in  favor 
of  annexation  in  the  manner  now  to  be  related.  He  said: 

The  men  qualified  are  here  to  carry  on  good  government,  provided  they 
have  the  support  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

Ah,  this  was  a  case  where  a  man  who  ought  to  be  honored  was 
unable  to  find  anyone  in  his  neighborhood  appreciating  his  merits. 
There  were  men  qualified  to  rule,  but  in,  order  to  rule  they  must 
have  the  support  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States.  They 
were  not  understood  at  home  —  not  wanted  as  rulers  by  their 
countrymen. 

Why  not  postpone  American  possession?  Would  it  not  be  just  as  well  for 
the  United  States  to  take  the  islands  twenty-five  years  hence? 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  203 

And  then  he  proceeds  to  argue  against  the  postponement  thus : 

Two-fifths  of  the  people  now  here  are  Chinese  and  Japanese.  If  the  pres 
ent  state  of  things  is  allowed  to  go  on  the  Asiatics  will  soon  largely  prepon 
derate,  for  the  native  Hawaiians  are  growing  less  at  the  rate  of  nearly  1,000 
per  year.  At  the  present  price  of  sugar,  and  at  the  prices  likely  to  hold  in  the 
future,  sugar-raising  on  these  islands  can  be  continued  only  by  the  cheapest 
possible  labor — that  of  the  Japanese,  the  Chinese,  and  the  Indian  coolies. 
Americanize  the  islands,  assume  control  of  the  "  Crown  lands,"  dispose  of 
them  in  small  lots  for  actual  settlers  and  freeholders  for  the  raising  of  cof 
fee,  oranges,  lemons,  bananas,  pineapples,  and  grapes — 

He  did  not  say  "  ripe  pears."     [Laughter.] 

and  the  result  soon  will  be  to  give  permanent  preponderance  to  a  popula 
tion  and  civilization  which  make  the  islands  like  Southern  California,  and 
at  no  distant  period  convert  them  into  gardens  and  sanitariums,  as  well  as 
supply  stations  for  American  commerce,  thus  bringing  everything  here  into 
harmony  with  American  life  and  prosperity. 

Now  listen  to  this  statement: 

To  postpone  American  action  many  years  is  only  to  add  to  present  unfav 
orable  tendencies  and  to  make  future  possession  more  difficult. 

Hence  at  this  moment  when  there  was  no  possible  warrant  for 
interference,  when  there  was  no  pretense  of  domestic  disturbance, 
no  danger  to  American  citizenship,  or  American  homes,  or  American 
life,  or  American,  comfort,  he  declares  "  that  to  postpone  American 
action  many  years  is  only  to  add  to  present  unfavorable  tendencies." 
What  action  did  he  in  this  remarkable  letter  suggest  was  the  best 
to  be  taken? 

One  of  two  courses — 
Says  he,  on  page   117,  House  Report  243 — 

seems  to  me  absolutely  necessary  to  be  followed,  either  bold  and  vigerous 
measures  for  annexation  or  a  "  customs  union,"  an  ocean  cable  from  the 
Californian  coast  to  Honolulu;  Pearl  Harbor  perpetually  ceded  to  the  United 
States,  with  an  implied  but  not  necessarily  stipulated  American  protecto 
rate  over  the  islands.  I  believe  the  former  to  be  the  better. 

What  former  course  did  the  minister  allude  to?  The  former 
course  was  that  which  is  expressed  in  these  words :  "  Bold  and 
vigorous  measures  for  annexation."  What  did  he  mean  by  "  bold 
and  vigorous  measures  ? "  A  protectorate  ?  No ;  because  he*  con 
sidered  the  protectorate  scheme  and  repudiated  it,  but  he  meant  bold 
and  vigorous  measures  to  result  in  the  acquisition  of  territorial 
supremacy  in  those  islands.  In  other  words,  at  that  time,  in  the 
hour  of  profound  peace,  when  he  represented  this  friendly  Govern 
ment  at  that  court,  he  advised  the  Secretary  of  State  and  gave  it 
as  his  deliberate  opinion  that  it  was  the  business  and  office  of  tMs 
Government  to  capture  the  Hawaiian  group. 

He  remarks,  page  118,  same  report: 

It  is  equally  true  that  the  desire  here  at  this  time  for  annexation  is  much 
stronger  than  in  1889.  Besides,  so  long  as  the  islands  retain  their  own  independ 
ent  government  there  remains  the  possibility  that  England  or  the  Canadian 
Dominion  might  secure  one  of  the  Hawaiian  harbors  for  a  coaling  station. 
Annexation  excludes  all  dangers  of  this  kind. 

Mr.  Stevens  not  only  insisted  on  "  bold  and  vigorous  measures," 
but  he  was  also  opposed  to  independence,  because  he  says  that  so 


204  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

long  as  the  islands  retain  their  own  independent  government  this 
deprecated  condition  must  last.  Hence  he  was  in  favor  of  a  bold 
and  vigorous  policy,  one  which  would  take  away  the  independence 
of  the  islands  and  reduce  them  to  the  position  of  dependency,  or 
culminate  in  annexation. 

Mr.  President,  when  we  find  that  a  certain  thing  has  been  com 
mitted  or  done  and  there  is  a  question  as  to  the  motive  or  a  doubt 
concerning  the  inspiration  of  the  matter,  we  inquire  as  to  the  animus 
of  the  party  accused.  Here  is  Mr.  Stevens  for  months  striving  to 
acquire  the  islands  by  bold  and  vigorous  measures,  finally  enjoying 
the  coveted  opportunity.  His  soul  filled  with  the  idea,  possessed 
with  the  notion  that  it  was  his  function  to  reform  the  Hawaiian 
people  and  to  bring  them  within  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Republic. 
This  was  the  end  in  view.  As  to  the  means  to  be  adopted  or  thie 
wishes  of  the  people  he  cared  not.  Poor  human  nature  could  not 
resist.  The  deed  was  done.  He  acted  contrary  to  law  and  against 
propriety,  but  moved  in  accordance  with  his  opinion.  Cervantes 
says,  I  think,  that  every  man  is  what  Heaven  has  made  him  —  and 
sometimes  a  great  deal  worse.  I  do  not  know  that  it  would  be 
proper  to  criticise  Mr.  Stevens  harshly  or  to  make  a  personal  attack 
upon  him.  I  believe  he  has  acted  pursuant  to  his  lights. 

I  have  said  that  the  Provisional  Government  was  dependent 
upon  Mr.  Stevens.  Again,  I  am  not  required  to  submit  the  testi 
mony  of  anti-annexationists.  I  am  not  required  to  call  to  the  witness 
stand  any  one  who  represented  or  represents  interests  opposed  to 
Mr.  Stevens,  but  I  appeal  to  the  letter  of  the  Provisional  Govern 
ment,  addressed  upon  the  3ist  day  of  January  to  Mr.  Stevens,  worded 
as  follows: 

HONOLULU,  HAWAIIAN  ISLANDS,  January  31,   1893. 

Sir :  Believing  that  we  are  unable  to  satisfactorily  protect  life  and  prop 
erty,  and  to  prevent  civil  disorders  in  Honolulu  and  throughout  the  Hawaiian 
Islands,  we  hereby,  in  obedience  to  the  instructions  of  the  advisory  council, 
pray  that  you  will  raise  the  flag  of  the  United  States  of  America  for  the 
protection  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  for  the  time  being,  and  to  that  end  we 
hereby  confer  upon  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  through  you,  freedom 
of  occupation  of  the  public  buildings  of  this  Government,  and  of  the  soil 
of  this  country,  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  for  the  exercise  of  such  pro 
tection,  but  not  interfering  with  the  administration  of  public  affairs  by  this 
Government. 

We  have,   etc., 

SANFORD  B.  DOLE, 
President  of  the  Pro-visional  Government  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands 

and  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 
J.   A.   KING, 

Minister  of  the  Interior. 

P.  C.  JONES, 

Minister  of  Finance. 

WILLIAM   O.    SMITH, 

A  ttorney-General. 
His  Excellency  JOHN  L.   STEVENS. 

Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 

of  the  United  States, 

These  individuals,  who  are  claimed  to  have  been  strong  enough 
to  overthrow  the  Queen  when  she  was  surrounded  by  her  friends 
and  with  her  military  forces,  these  men  who  had  obtained  all  the 
support  which  the  record  shows  was  given  them  by  the  naval  forces 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  205 

of  the  United  States,  find  themselves  unable  to  preserve  their  Gov 
ernment  in  the  presence  of  their  disarmed  and  dispossessed  rivals. 
Can  it  be  possible  that  the  Provisional  forces  were  able  to  conquer 
the  Queen,  and  still  unable  to  retain  the  position  which  it  is  claimed 
they  won?  Certain  it  is,  that  it  was  found  necessary  to  solicit  the 
interposition  of  the  United  States  to  preserve  that  which  every 
nation  must  be  able  to  enforce  or  go  to  pieces  —  order.  The  effect 
of  the  hoisting  of  the  flag  was  expressed  in  Mr.  Stevens's  telegram 
of  February  8,  wherein  he  said: 

The  affairs  of  state  continue  to  be  hopeful.  Hoisting  flag  in  protection  of 
this  Government  was  expected.  Subjects  who  were  doubtful  now  for  annexa 
tion.  The  natives  show  unexpected  regard  for  the  United  States  flag. 

No  wonder  the  Dole  administration  became  more  generally 
respected.  All  admitted  the  power  of  the  United  States.  That  the 
flag  was  raised  to  indicate  American  dominancy  is  apparent  from 
the  letter  of  Mr.  Stevens  to  Mr.  Foster,  dated  February  8,  1893. 
He  there  said : 

As  soon  as  it  can  become  a  certainty  that  these  islands  are  to  remain  under 
the  United  States  flag  as  a  part  of  American  territory,  there  is  little  doubt 
that  all  the  principal  leaders  will  wish  to  become  American  citizens,  and  their 
assistance  can  be  had  to  help  bring  the  native  people  into  ready  obedience 
to  American  law  and  fidelity  to  the  American  flag. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  argue  as  to  the  impropriety  of  Stevens's 
conduct  in  raising  the  flag  since  Mr.  Foster  in  his  letter  of  February 
14,  in  speaking  of  Stevens's  course,  said : 

So  far  as  it  may  appear  to  overstep  that  limit  by  setting  the  authority  of 
the  United  States  above  that  of  the  Hawaiian  Government  in  the  capacity 
of  protector,  or  to  impair  the  independent  sovereignty  of  that  Government 
by  substituting  the  flag  and  power  of  the  United  States,  it  is  disavowed. 

Secretary  Tracy,  in  writing  to  Admiral  Skerrett,  disavowed  the 
action  of  that  commander  in  setting  the  authority  of  the  United 
States  above  that  of  the  Hawaiian  Government.  The  proclamation 
of  Mr.  Stevens  assuming  control  is  a  remarkable  one.  It  is  as 
follows : 

By  authority   of   the    Hawaiian   people : 

At  the  request  of  the  Provisional  Government  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  I 
hereby,  in  the  name  of  the  United  States  of  America,  assume  protection  of 
the  Hawaiian  Islands  for  the  protection  of  life  and  property,  and  occupation 
of  the  public  buildings  and  Hawaiian  soil,  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  for 
the  purpose  specified,  but  not  interfering  with  the  administration  of  public 
affairs  by  the  Provisional  Government.  This  action  is  taken  pending  and 
subject  to  negotiations  at  Washington. 

JOHN  L.   STEVENS, 
Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  the   United  States. 

When  we  consider  that  Mr.  Stevens  for  two  or  three  years  had 
been  in  favor  of  a  vigorous  policy  with  reference,  to  annexation, 
that  he  was  holding  secret  meetings  with  revolutionists  who  had  not 
as  yet  accomplished  anything,  and  that  immediately  after  that  secret 
meeting  he  was  requested  by  the  revolutionists  to  land  troops  (no 
American  citizen  as  such  made  any  demand  upon  him  for  aid),  that 
he  did  land  them,  that  thereupon  a  provisional  government  was 


206  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

proclaimed,  that  he  immediately  recognized  it,  while  the  Queen  was 
yet  possessed  of  effective  power,  and  afterwards  ran  up  our  flag  and 
announced  that  the  country  was  under  the  protection  of  the  United 
States,  no  rational  being  can  doubt  that  this  Government  through 
Mr.  Stevens  was  a  participant  in  the  overthrow  of  a  foreign  govern 
ment. 

The  matters  which  I  have  thus  cited  are,  as  I  have  stated, 
admitted.  It  is  perfectly  immaterial  whether  any  gentlemen  have 
an  opinion  to  the  effect  that  the  Queen  would  have  lost  her  throne 
without  Stevens's  interposition.  It  is  plain  that  the  ability  of  the 
revolutionists  was  not  tested,  but  that  the  deed  was  accomplished 
through  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

That  there  was  no  commotion  of  magnitude  appears  from  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Wundenberg  (House  Executive  Document  No.  47, 
page  577).  He  states: 

At  the  time  the  men  landed  the  town  was  perfectly  quiet,  business  hours 
were  about  over,  and  the  people — men,  women,  and  children — were  in  the 
streets,  and  nothing  unusual  was  to  be  seen  except  the  landing  of  a  formida 
ble  armed  force  with  Gatling  guns,  evidently  fully  prepared  to  remain  on 
shore  for  an  indefinite  length  of  time,  as  the  men  were  supplied  with  double 
cartridge  belts  filled  with  ammunition,  also  haversacks  and  canteens,  and 
were  attended  by  a  hospital  corps,  with  stretchers  and  medical  supplies. 

The  curiosity  of  the  people  on  the  streets  was  aroused,  and  the  youngest, 
more  particularly,  followed  the  troops  to  see  what  it  was  all  about.  *  *  * 
During  all  the  deliberations  of  the  committee,  and,  in  fact,  throughout  the 
whole  proceedings  connected  with  plans  for  the  moving  up  to  the  final  issue, 
the  basis  of  action  was  the  general  understanding  that  Minister  Stevens 
would  keep  his  promise  to  support  the  movement  with  the  men  from  the 
Boston,  and  the  statement  is  now  advisedly  made  that  without  the  previous 
assurance  of  support  from  the  American  minister,  and  the  actual  presence 
of  the  United  States  troops,  no  movement  would  have  been  attempted,  and  if 
attempted  would  have  been  a  dismal  failure,  resulting  in  the  capture  or 
death  of  the  participants  in  a  very  short  time. 

This  gentleman  is  admittedly  a  man  of  strict  integrity  and 
high  standing.  The  letter  written  by  Admiral  Skerrett  to  Mr. 
Blount  demonstrates  that  the  troops  were  not  landed  to  protect 
American  interests  or  for  any  other  purpose  than  to  facilitate  the 
revolution.  That  letter  is  as  follows : 

U.  S.  S.  BOSTON,  FLAGSHIP  OP  THE  PACIFIC  STATION. 

Honolulu,  Hawaiian  Islands,  May  20,   1893. 

Sir:  I  have  examined  with  a  view  of  inspection  the  premises  first  occu 
pied  by  the  force  landed  from  the  United  States  steamer  Boston,  and  known 
as  Arion  Hall,  situated  on  the  west  side  of  the  government  building.  The 
position  of  this  location  is  in  the  rear  of  a  large  brick  building  known  as 
Music  Hall.  The  street  it  faces  is  comparatively  a  narrow  one,  the  building 
itself  facing  the  government  building.  In  my  opinion,  it  was  unadvisable  to 
locate  the  troops  there  if  they  were  landed  for  the  protection  of  the  United 
States  citizens,  being  distantly  removed  from  the  business  portion  of  the 
town,  and  generally  far  away  from  the  United  States  legation  and  consulate- 

feneral,  as   well   as   being   distanf   from   the   houses   and   residences    of   United 
tares  citizens.     It   will   be   seen   from   the   accompanying   sketch   that   had  the 
Provisional    Government    troops    been    attacked    from    the    east,    such    attack 
would  have  placed  them  in  the  line  of  fire. 

Had  Music  Hall  been  seized  by  the  Queen's  troops,  they  would  have  been 
under  their  fire  had  such  been  their  desire.  It  is  for  these  reasons  that  I  con 
sider  the  position  occupied  as  illy  selected.  Naturally,  if  they  were  landed 
with  a  view  to  support  the  Provisional  Government  troops,  then  occupying 
the  government  building,  it  was  a  wise  choice,  as  they  could  enfilade  any 
troops  attacking  them  from  the  palace  grounds  in  front.  There  is  nothing 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  207 

further  for  me  to  state  with  reference  to  this  matter,  and  as  has  been  called 
by  you  to  my  attention,  all  of  which  is  submitted  for  your  consideration. 
Very  respectfully, 

J.  S.  SKERRETT, 
Rear-Admiral  United  States  Navy. 
Commanding  United  States  Force,  Pacific  Station. 

Col.  J.  H.  BLOUNT, 

United  States  Minister  Plenipotentiary  and 
Envoy  Extraordinary,  Honolulu,  Hawaiian  Islands. 

NO  TREATY  OF  ANNEXATION  SHOULD  BE  MADE. 

One  of  the  questions  to  be  determined  here,  as  far  as  the 
resolution  is  concerned,  and  one  of  the  matters  to  which  Mr.  Cleve 
land's  mind  was  directed,  concerns  the  ratification  of  the  treaty. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  against  annexing  the  Hawaiian  Islands. 
I  am  opposed  to  annexation  because  the  Provisional  Government 
has  not  the  stability  to  warrant  the  execution  of  such  a  contract. 
Its  endurance  is  problematical. 

A  treaty  is  valid  if  there  be  no  defect  in  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been 
concluded ;  and  for  this  purpose  nothing  more  can  be  required  than  a  suffi 
cient  power  in  the  contracting  parties,  and  their  mutual  consent  sufficiently 
declared. — Vattel,  page  193. 

"  Sufficient  power  in  the  contracting  parties."  Understand  me, 
Mr.  President,  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  a  de  facto  government, 
which  I  have  admitted  to  be  pro  hac  vice  a,  de  jure  government  also, 
has  no  power  to  enter  into  a  treaty  with  a  nation  which  sees  fit  to 
recognize  it,  but  I  affirm  that  in  dealing  with  another  nation  this 
Republic  must  take  into  consideration  the  condition  of  affairs  under 
which  those  claiming  to  represent  the  other  party  seek  to  exercise 
supreme  authority.  We,  as  a  free  people,  maintaining  constitutional 
principles  which  we  have  attempted  to  perpetuate  for  the  benefit  of 
mankind,  can  not  afford  to  take  within  our  confines  new  territory 
unless  we  know  beyond  all  cavil  and  all  dispute  that  there  is  not  only 
technical  power  in  those  executing  the  contract,  but  that  they  who  so 
act  in  truth  express  the  unquestioned  will  of  the  people. 

Mr.  MITCHELL  of  Oregon.  May  I  ask  the  Senator  from 
California  a  question? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     Certainly. 

Mr.  MITCHELL  of  Oregon.  Suppose  there  were  no  question 
in  the  mind  of  the  Senator  from  California  as  to  the  stability  of  the 
existing  Government  of  the  Sandwich  Islands,  would  the  Senator 
then  favor  annexation? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  I  am  about  to  state  that  I  would 
not,  and  will  give  the  reasons  for  my  conclusion.  I  have  given  one 
reason.  Secondly,  the  Provisional  Government  does  not  represent 
the  people. 

If  this  proposition  is  correct  the  deduction  is  inevitable  that 
there  should  be  no  annexation.  Upon  what  do  I  base  this  assertion? 
I  am  fully  aware  the  authorities  are  that  for  business  and  com 
mercial  purposes  and  the  carrying  on  of  diplomatic  relations  the 
existence  of  a  government  for  a  reasonable  length  of  time  must  be 
taken  as  evidence  that  it  is  supported  by  the  people.  This  is  a  rule 
for  convenience.  Again,  I  say  that  we  can  not  afford  to  rest  upon 
mere  presumptions  which  the  history  of  the  world  has  demonstrated 


208  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

time  and  time  again,  may  or  may  not  be  well  founded,  but  we  must 
know  that  the  will  of  the  people  prevails.  Disregarding  the  mere 
presumption  indulged  in  for  the  objects  already  mentioned,  we 
should  look  deeper  and  act  upon  certainty.  When  we  reach  beyond 
the  sea  and  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  our  flag  and  beyond  the  limits 
of  this  Republic  and  take  within  us  alien  territory  we  must  find  that 
we  are  acting  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the  people,  whbse 
property,  liberties,  and  lives  we  contemplate  bringing  within  the 
reach  of  our  laws. 

Mr.  Webster  said  March   15,   1843: 

We  seek  no  control  over  their  Government  nor  any  undue  influence  what 
ever.  Our  only  wish  is  that  the  integrity  and  independence  of  the  Hawaiian 
territory  may  be  scrupulously  maintained  and  that  its  Government  should 
be  entirely  impartial  toward  foreigners  of  every  nation. 

President  Johnson  on  December  9,  1868,  while  referring  favor 
ably  to  a  project  of  annexation,  said  that  he  regarded  reciprocity  with 
Hawaii  as  desirable  "  until  the  people  of  the  islands  shall  of  them 
selves  at  no  distant  day  voluntarily  apply  for  admission  to  the 
Union." 

Mr.  Bayard  In  his  letter  to  Mr.  Merrill,  July  12,  1887,  which  is 
found  in  House  Report  243,  page  17,  says: 

As  is  well  known,  no  intent  is  cherished  or  policy  entertained  by  the 
United  States  which  is  otherwise  than  friendly  to  the  autonomical  control 
and  independence  of  Hawaii. 

This  does  not  accord  with  Mr.  Stevens's  notion  as  expressed 
in  his  letter  of  November  20,  that  the  independence  of  the  islands 
is  undesirable. 

The  authorities  with  reference  to  the  recognition  of  the  inde 
pendence  of  revolutionary  governments  are,  in  substance,  that  no 
affirmative  action  should  be  taken  until  there  is  evidence  that  the 
new  system  is  approved  by  the  people. 

Said  Minister  Seward,  in  his  dispatch  to  Mr.  Bigelow,  the 
United  States  Minister  to  France,  on  June  30,  1865  (see  Dana's 
Wheaton,  Note  41)  : 

So  far  as  our  relations  are  concerned,  what  we  hold  in  regard  to  Mexico  is,, 
that  France  is  a  belligerent  there,  in  a  war  with  the  republic  of  Mexico.  We 
do  not  enter  into  the  merits  of  the  belligerents,  but  we  practice  in  regard 
to  the  contest  the  principles  of  neutrality,  as  we  have  insisted  on  the  prac 
tice  of  neutrality  by  all  nations  in  regard  to  our  civil  war.  Our  friendship 
toward  the  republic  of  Mexico  and  our  sympathies  with  the  republican  sys 
tem  on  this  continent,  as  well  as  our  faith  and  confidence  in  it,  have  been 
continually  declared.  Political  intervention  in  the  affairs  of  foreign  states 
is  a  principle  thus  far  avoided  by  our  Government. 

It  will  be  observed  that  when  this  letter  was  written,  Maxi 
milian  had  been  put  upon  the  throne  for  a  considerable  period  of 
time. 

The  habitual  obedience  of  the  members  of  any  political  society  to  a  supe 
rior  authority  must  have  once  existed  in  order  to  constitute  a  sovereign 
state.  (Dana's  Wheaton,  page  34.) 

The  independence  of  the  Spanish  provinces  of  South  America 
was  finally  recognized  by  Congress,  and  diplomatic  relations  estab- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  209 

lished   in   January,    1822,   several  years   after   the   revolutionists   had 
assumed  complete  control. 

Said   President  Jackson   in   December,    1836: 

The  acknowledgment  of  a  new  state  as  independent  and  entitled  to  a  place 
in  the  family  of  nations  is  at  all  times  an  act  of  great  delicacy  and  respon 
sibility.  *  *  *  In  the  contest  between  Spain  and  the  revolted  colonies  we 
stood  aloof  and  waited  not  only  until  the  ability  of  the  new  states  to  pro 
tect  themselves  was  fully  established,  but  until  the  danger  of  their  being 
again  subjugated  had  entirely  passed  away.  Then,  and  not  until  then,  they 
were  recognized.  Such  was  our  course  in  regard  to  Mexico  herself.  The 
same  policy  was  observed  in  all  the  disputes  arising  out  of  the  separation 
into  distinct  governments  of  those  Spanish-American  states  which  began  or 
carried  on  the  contest  with  the  parent  country  united  under  one  form  of 
government. 

We  acknowledged  the  separate  independence  of  New  Granada,  Venezuela, 
and  of  Ecuador  only  after  their  independent  existence  was  no  longer  a  sub 
ject  of  dispute  or  was  actually  acquiesced  in  by  those  with  whom  they  had 
been  previously  united.  *  *  *  Prudence,  therefore,  seems  to  dictate  that 
we  should  still  stand  aloof  and  maintain  our  present  attitude,  if  not  until 
Mexico  itself  or  one  of  the  great  foreign  powers  shall  recognize  the  inde 
pendence  of  the  new  government,  at  least  until  the  lapse  of  time  or  the  course 
of  events  shall  have  proved  beyond  cavil  or  dispute  the  ability  of  the  people 
of  that  country  to  maintain  their  separate  sovereignty  and  to  uphold  the 
government  established  by  them. — Dana's  Wheaton,  pages  44-45. 

The  independence  of  the  South  American  republics  was  recognized  first 
by  the  United  States  and  tardily  by  England,  but  by  both  upon  the  ground 
that,  after  long-recognized  belligerency  and  the  practical  unobstructed  exercise 
by  them  of  sovereign  powers,  Spain,  separated  by  an  ocean,  had  abandoned 
actual  efforts  for  their  reduction,  and  only  clung  to  a  nominal  right.  *  *  * 
Mr.  Clay  proposed  in  Congress  a  mission  to  the  South  American  provinces 
to  express  the  sympathy  of  the  United  States  and  with  a  view  to  enter  into 
friendly  relations  with  them  at  a  future  day.  The  proposition  was  rejected 
by  a  vote  of  115  to  45,  on  the  ground  of  the  still  unsettled  state  of  the  provinces 
and  the  continuance  of  actual  war. — Dana's  Wheaton,  page  43,  note. 

In  justifying  the  action  of  the  United  States  regarding  the 
South  American  difficulties,  Mr.  Gallatin,  our  minister  at  Paris, 
wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  Adams,  on  November  5,  1818, 
among  other  things,  thus : 

We  had  not,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  excited  the  insurrection.  It  had 
been  the  spontaneous  act  of  the  inhabitants  and  the  natural  effect  of  causes 
which  neither  the  United  States  nor  Europe  could  have  controlled.  We  had 
lent  no  assistance  to  either  party;  we  had  preserved  a  strict  neutrality,  (i 
Wharton's  International  Law,  page  522.) 

Mr.  Adams,  as  Secretary  of  State,  writing  to  President  Mon 
roe,  on  August  24,  1816,  regarding  the  same  subject,  said: 

I  am  'satisfied  that  the  cause  of  the  South  Americans,  so  far  as  it  consists 
in  the  assertion  of  independence  against  Spain,  is  just.  But  the  justice  of 
a  cause,  however  it  may  enlist  individual  feelings  in  its  favor,  is  not  suffi 
cient  to  justify  third  parties  in  siding  with  it.  The  fact  and  the  right  com 
bined  can  alone  authorize  a  neutral  to  acknowledge  a  new  and  disputed 
•sovereignty. 

When  a  sovereign  state,  from  exhaustion,  or  any  other  cause,  has  virtu 
ally  and  substantially  abandoned  the  struggle  for  supremacy,  it  has  no  right 
to  complain  if  a  foreign  state  treat  the  independence  of  its  former  subjects 
as  de  facto  established.  When,  on  the  other  hand,  the  contest  is  not  absolutely 
or  permanently  decided,  a  recognition  of  the  inchoate  independence  of  the 
insurgents  by  a  foreign  state,  is  a  hostile  act  towards  the  sovereign  state,  which 
the  latter  is  entitled  to  resent  as  a  breach  of  neutrality  and  friendship.  It 
is  to  the  facts  of  the  case  that  foreign  nations  must  look.  The  question  with 
them  ought  to  be:  Is  there  a  bona  fide  contest  going  on?  If  it  has  virtually 


210  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

ceased,  the  recognition  of  the  insurgents   is   then  at  their  discretion.     (Boyd's 
Wheaton,  section  27.) 

In  speaking-  of  the  cases  where  the  recognition  of  the  independ 
ence  of  a  new  government  is  proper,  Prof.  Woolsey,  International 
Law,  page  41,  sixth  edition,  remarks: 

It  is  almost  needless  to  say  that  this  rule  can  not  have  its  application  as 
long  as  there  is  evident  doubt  whether  a  government  is  a  fact. 

A  revolutionary  government  is  not  to  be  recognized  until  it  is  established 
by  the  great  body  of  the  population  of  the  state  it  claims  to  govern.  (Mr. 
Seward  to  Mr.  Culver,  November  19,  1862,  i  Wharton,  page  542.) 

Says  Mr.  Fish  to  Mr.  Sickles,  with  reference  to  diplomatic 
matters  in  Spain,  i  Wharton,  page  545 : 

We  have  always  accepted  the  general  acquiescence  of  the  people  in  a 
political  change  of  government  as  a  conclusive  evidence  of  the  will  of  the 
nation. 

As  an  instance  showing  the  care  exercised  by  this  Government 
in  recognizing  the  sovereignty  of  a  particular  state,  attention  is 
called  to  the  case  of  Tripoli,  i  Wharton's  International  Law,  page 
546. 

President  Hayes  in  his  first  annual  message,  1877,  said: 

It  has  been  the  custom  of  the  United  States,  when  such  revolutionary 
changes  of  government  have  heretofore  occurred  in  Mexico,  to  recognize  and 
enter  into  official  relations  with  the  de  facto  government  as  soon  as  it  shall 
appear  to  have  the  approval  of  the  Mexican  people. 

Mr.  Seward  wrote  to  Mr.  Foster,  minister  to  Mexico,  in  1877, 
and  among  other  things  stated  this  to  be  the  policy  of  the  United 
States : 

In  the  present  case  (United  States)  it  waits  before  recognizing  Gen.  Diaz 
as  the  President  of  Mexico,  until  it  shall  be  assured  that  his  election  is 
approved  by  the  Mexican  people,  (i  Wharton,  page  548.) 

Mr.  Evarts  in  his  note  to  Mr.  Baker,  June  14,  1879,  m  the  Ven 
ezuela  case,  said: 

In  other  words,  while  the  United  States  regard  their  international  com 
pacts  and  obligations  as  entered  into  with  nations  rather  than  with  politi 
cal  governments,  it  behooves  them  to  be  watchful  lest  their  course  toward 
a  government  should  affect  the  relations  to  the  nation.  Hence,  it  has  been 
the  customary  policy  of  the  United  States  to  be  satisfied  on  this  point,  and 
doing  so  is  in  no  wise  an  implication  of  doubt  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  the 
internal  change  which  may  occur  in  another  state,  (i  Wharton,  pages  548-549.) 

If  the  Calderon  Government  is  supported  by  the  character  and  intelli 
gence  of  Peru,  and  is  really  endeavoring  to  restore  constitutional  government 
with  a  view  both  to  order  within  and  negotiation  with  Chile  for  peace,  you 
may  recognize  it  as  the  existing  Provisional  Government,  and  render  what 
aid  you  can  by  advice  and  good  offices  to  that  end. — Mr.  Elaine  to  Mr.  Christ- 
iancy,  May  9,  1881.  (i  Whar.,  page  550.) 

Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Logan,  March  17,  1884, 
said: 

The  Department  of  State  will  not  recognize  a  revolutionary  government 
claiming  to  represent  the  people  in  a  South  American  state  until  it  is  estab 
lished  by  a  free  expression  of  the  will  of  that  people. 

President  Arthur,   in   his  third   annual   message,    1883, 
speaking  of  South  American  difficulties : 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  211 

Meanwhile  the  provisional  government  of  Gen.  Iglesias  has  applied  for 
recognition  to  the  principal  powers  of  America  and  Europe.  When  the  will 
of  the  Peruvian  people  shall  be  manifested,  I  shall  not  hesitate  to  recognize 
the  government  approved  by  them,  (i  Whar.,  p.  550.) 

In  the  late  domestic  disturbance  in  Chile,  our  Government  issued 
its  instructions  to  Minister  Egan  on  September  4,  to  the  effect  that  if  a 
government  was  installed  and  accepted  by  the  people  of  Chile  he  was 
authorized  to  recognize  it. 

Even  Mr.  Foster  concedes  the  rule  to  be  as  I  have  stated  it,  for 
he  says  in  his  telegram  to  Mr.  Stevens  (House  Report  243,  page 
451): 

The  rule  of  this  Government  has  uniformly  been  to  recognize  and  enter 
into  relations  with  any  actual  government  in  full  possession  of  effective 
power  with  the  assent  of  the  people.  You  will  continue  to  recognize  the  new 
government  under  such  conditions. 

Mr.  Stevens  did  not  pay  much  attention  to  these  authorities  when 
he  recognized  the  Dole  government.  But  his  conduct  furnishes  no 
precedent  adequate  to  justify  the  United  States  in  concluding  the  pro 
posed  treaty  of  annexation  or  any  similar  compact. 

While  the  precedents  just  cited  pertain  to  the  course  proper  to 
be  adopted  when  the  recognition  of  a  new  government  is  involved, 
the  law  as  laid  down  is  applicable  here;  because  if  it  be  true  that 
before  we  may  rightfully  take  official  notice  of  a  revolutionary  organi 
zation  we  must  be  thus  careful  and  thus  positive  as  to  the  facts  and 
must  know  that  we  are  acting  in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  the 
people,  how  much  greater  should  be  our  solicitude  and  how  cautiously 
should  we  act  before  we  make  a  step  which  must  result  in  the  oblitera 
tion  of  a  sovereignty  and  the  abandonment  of  national  independence? 
The  commonest  honesty  compels  us  to  subordinate  our  ambitions  to 
the  desires  of  the  nation  we  are  asked  to  absorb. 

Mr.  Stevens  is  authority  for  the  statement  that  the  people  of  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  can  not  govern  themselves.  In  a  lecture  delivered 
by  him  in  Massachusetts  and  reported  in  the  Boston  Journal  of 
November  23,  1893,  he  said: 

But  I  hear  a  whisper  in  the  air :  "  Let  the  islands  vote  on  the  question." 
This  demand  comes  from  three  distinct  sources.  It  was  first  made  by  the 
British  minister  at  Honolulu,  a  Tory  in  his  political  views,  many  years  a 
resident  in  Hawaii,  a  persistent  antagonist  of  American  interests,  and  by  per 
sonal  bonds  and  family  relations  strongly  attached  to  the  fallen  Hawaiian 
monarchy.  You  remember  how  many  votes  have  been  taken  in  India  and 
Hongkong  and  Cyprus.  [Laughter.]  Immediately  after  its  organization  in 
January  last  he  urged  this  plan  on  the  Provisional  Government.  This  scheme 
was  subsequently  brought  forward  by  the  Queen's  attorney.  The  lottery  and 
opium  rings,  of  which  the  fallen  Queen's  lawyer  is  believed  to  be  the  agent, 
favor  the  plan.  While  the  ultra  Tory  English  and  the  Canadian  Pacific  Rail 
road  have  purposes  in  view  other  than  those  of  the  fallen  Queen  and  the  lot 
tery  and  opium  rings,  they  are  agreed  as  to  the  method  of  defeating  annexation. 

The  ex-Queen's  attorney  has  often  been  the  paid  agent  of  Claus  Spreckels, 
and  the  latter  makes  part  of  the  alliance  to  kill  annexation  by  the  plebiscitum. 
This  is  an  alliance  powerful  as  it  is  disreputable.  It  is  not  admissible  by  honest 
Americans  for  the  following  reasons:  It  would  surely  result  in  the  raising  of 
an  enormous  corruption  fund  by  the  allied  parties.  The  Canadian  Pacific  Rail 
road  is  a  great  power  in  Canadian  politics,  and  in  the  past  has  used  vast  bribes 
to  accomplish  its  designs,  and  wants  to  have  its  foot  and  hand  firmly  in  Hawaii. 

The  respectable  citizens  of  the  islands  do  not  believe  in  wholesale  bribery 
and  the  importation  of  voters,  and  should  they  even  take  into  consideration 


212  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

such  a  method  of  accomplishing  their  wishes,  they  could  not  fail  to  see  that 
Spreckels  with  his  millions,  the  opium  and  lottery  rings,  and  the  ultra  British 
ers  in  Canada  and  England,  could  throw  into  the  contest  a  bribery  fund  which 
they  could  not  and  would  not  try  to  equal.  It  is  therefore  obvious  that  the 
plebiscitum  scheme  has  been  devised  as  the  most  sure  to  result  in  striking 
down  American  civilization  and  American  interest  in  the  islands,  flooding  them 
with  an  Asiatic  population  and  ruthlessly  sacrificing  what  the  American  Board, 
the  American  missionaries,  and  the  American  teachers  have  accomplished  in 
seventy  years. 

No  one  disputes  that  the  masses  of  the  Hawaiian  people  are 
opposed  to  annexation.  Mr.  Blount's  statement  upon  this  subject 
does  not  seem  to  be  challenged.  He  says  (Report,  page  59)  : 

The  testimony  of  leading  annexationists  is  that  if  the  question  of  annexa 
tion  was  submitted  to  a  popular  vote,  excluding  all  persons  who  could  not 
read  and  write  except  foreigners  (under  the  Australian  ballot  system,  which  is 
the  law  of  the  land),  that  annexation  would  be  defeated. 

From  a  careful  inquiry  I  am  satisfied  that  it  would  be  defeated  by  a  vote 
of  at  least  two  to  one.  If  the  votes  of  persons  claiming  allegiance  to  foreign 
countries  were  excluded  it  would  be  defeated  by  more  than  five  to  one. 

The  undoubtful  sentiment  of  the  people  is  for  the  Queen,  against  the  Pro 
visional  Government  and  against  annexation.  A  majority  of  the  whites,  espe 
cially  Americans,  are  for  annexation. 

It  will  not  do,  as  I  have  heretofore  observed,  to  declare  that 
because  the  intelligence  and  respectability  of  Hawaii  favor  annexa 
tion  that  therefore  the  scheme  must  succeed  regardless  of  popular 
desire.  It  is  no  part  of  the  business  of  this  country  to  conquer 
nations,  even  for  their  betterment.  Almost  at  the  outset  of  our  Decla 
ration  of  Independence  we  assert  that  governments  derive  "  their  just 
powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed." 

Shall  we,  who  base  our  right  to  the  sovereignty  upon  the  will  of 
our  citizens,  be  heard  to  say  that  it  is  politic  or  right  or  American  to 
step  out  of  our  boundaries  and  coerce  to  submission  those  who,  how 
ever  poor,  however  lowly,  however  inferior,  however  ignorant,  are, 
after  all,  men  and  women  fashioned  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  their 
maker,  and  entitled  under  our  laws,  under  our  Constitution,  under  our 
Declaration  of  Independence,  and  the  virtue  of  our  oft-reiterated  pro 
fessions,  to  receive  at  our  hands  that  equal  treatment  which  we 
demanded  for  ourselves,  and  which  demanding  we  won  and  have 
maintained  ? 

It  is  against  the  interests  of  the  United  States  to  acquire  the 
Hawaiian  Islands.  They  are  too  far  removed.  Are  difficult  and 
expensive  to  defend.  The  population  is  undesirable  and  likely  to  so 
remain  for  many  years. 

Says  Mr.  Alexander,  an  ardent  annexationist  (Executive  Docu 
ment  47,  page  199)  : 

Considering  the  character  of  our  mixed  population,  the  intensity  of  race 
jealousy,  the  concentration  of  one-fourth  of  the  population  comprising  its  most 
turbulent  elements  in  the  capital  city,  it  seems  vain  to  expect  a  suitable  self- 
governing,  independent  state  under  such  conditions.  It  is  time  one  of  the  great 
powers  should  intervene,  and  it  is  needless  to  ask  which  power  has  its  hands 
unfettered  by  conventions  and  already  holds  paramount  interests  and  responsi 
bilities  in  this  archipelago. 

Here  is  an  admission  that  those  whom  we  are  requested  to  make 
our  fellow  citizens  are  incapable  of  self  control.  Here  is  a  declaration 
from  a  gentleman  of  attainments,  and  I  assume,  of  integrity,  that 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  213 

Hawaii  should  be  annexed  because  of  the  degraded  character  of  the 
majority  of  the  inhabitants. 

Mr.  Jefferson  wrote  to  President  Madison,  April  27,  1809: 

It  will  be  objected  to  our  receiving  Cuba  that  no  limit  can  then  be  drawn 
to  our  future  acquisitions.  Cuba  can  be  defended  by  us  without  a  navy,  and  this 
develops  the  principle  which  ought  to  limit  our  views.  Nothing  should  ever 
be  accepted  which  would  require  a  navy  to  defend  it. 

Mr.  Jefferson  was  not  opposed  to  the  annexation  of  Cuba,  but  he 
did  not  believe  it  policy  to  acquire  any  territory  to  defend  which  our 
naval  forces  would  be  requisite. 

Mr.  Frelinghuysen  in  a  note  to  Mr.  Langston  cited  in  i  Whar- 
ton,  page  579,  declares  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  policy  of  our  Govern 
ment  to  attempt  such  territorial  aggrandizement  as  will  require  a 
naval  force. 

Mr.  Bayard  made  a  similar  announcement  which  may  be  found 
in  the  same  volume,  page  580. 

Said  Mr.  Cleveland  in  his  message  of  1885 : 

Maintaining,  as  I  do,  the  tenets  of  a  line  of  precedents  from  Washington's 
day,  which  proscribe  entangling  alliances  with  foreign  states,  I  do  not  favor  a 
policy  of  acquisition  of  new  and  distant  territory,  or  the  incorporation  of  remote 
interests  with  our  own. 

See  also  the  history  of  the  attempt  to  acquire  the  Danish  West 
Indies,  and  the  rejection  of  the  treaty  by  the  Senate,  (i  Wharton, 
page  416.)  See  as  to  San  Domingo  matter,  i  Wharton,  page  412, 
et  seq. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  stated  these  objections.  They  appeal  to 
me  with  more  or  less  force,  each  of  them  with  force  enough  to  deter 
mine  my  vote.  I  am  not  prepared  at  this  moment  to  lay  down  abso 
lute  doctrine,  from  which  I  shall  never  deviate  in  any  contingency, 
against  the  acquisition  of  foreign  lands,  provided  the  people  desire 
such  annexation ;  but  I  see  at  this  time  no  reason  to  qualify  or  doubt 
the  correctness  of  the  principle  maintained  from  Jefferson  to  Cleve 
land. 

There  is,  however,  another  objection  which  is  possibly  even 
stronger  than  those  which  I  have  just  discussed.  The  able  Senator 
from  Ohio  [Mr.  SHERMAN]  whose  deliberate  judgment  upon  any 
public  question  is  entitled  to  consideration,  and  other  distinguished 
Senators,  have  said,  either  upon  the  floor  or  elsewhere,  that  the 
Hawaiian  group  should  be  annexed  to  the  State  of  California.  Mr. 
President,  it  is  not  saying  any  more  than  the  truth  when  I  declare  that 
there  is  no  one  present  more  deeply  concerned  for  the  progress  and 
welfare  of  that  Commonwealth  than  I.  I  was  born  there,  reared  and 
educated  there,  whatever  I  possess  is  there,  whatever  of  distinc 
tion  I  have  acquired  has  been  from  the  favor  of  her  people,  and  if  I 
thought  that  it  would  be  to  her  advantage,  and  correspondingly  to  the 
advantage  of  the  Union,  that  action  favoring  annexation  should  be 
taken  here,  I  should  not  hesitate.  Not  for  any  party  reason,  or  to 
uphold  or  maintain  any  Administration,  should  I  forfeit  that  which  I 
considered  to  be  for  the  glory  and  happiness  of  my  country. 

But  a  short  time  since  we  were  considering  the  Chinese  question 
in  this  Chamber.  A  law  was  enacted  of  the  severest  character,  it  was 
said,  to  exclude  the  Mongolian  from  our  shores.  Day  by  day  our 
statesmen  are  endeavoring  to  solve  the  complicated  issues  which  have 


214  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

arisen  from  the  conflict  of  races,  precipitated  upon  them  without  any 
fault  of  the  present  generation. 

We  have  statutes  designed  to  prohibit  the  coming  of  paupers  and 
persons  unfitted  to  become  citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  whose 
presence  here  would  be  opposed  to  the  general  welfare,  or  who  might 
become  public  charges.  Under  these  conditions  what  should  I  think 
of  myself  if  standing  here  I  advocated  bringing  within  my  State  or 
within  the  United  States  a  people  who  are  notoriously  and  by  confes 
sion  of  all  unfitted  for  self-government,  a  population  of  some  90,000, 
containing  not  more  than  5  per  cent,  competent  for  the  elective  fran 
chise? 

Let  us  be  consistent.  But  lately  we  declared  the  presence  of  the 
Mongolian  inimical  to  the  Republic,  and  now  we  propose  to  annex 
an  island  flooded  with  the  lowest  class  of  Chinese  and  Japanese.  I 
know  that  it  will  be  said  that  these  Chinamen  can  be  excluded  and 
that  a  stipulation  to  that  effect  must  be  incorporated  in  the  treaty  if 
any  is  made.  We  have  had  enough  trouble  dealing  with  the  China 
men  and  should  not  seek  further  complications.  The  Chinese  and 
Japanese  form  but  a  portion  of  the  undesirable  residents  of  Hawaii. 
Mr.  Blount  has  given  us  a  statement  of  the  population  which  seems 
to  be  accurate.  He  says  (Report,  pages  60,  61)  : 

The  population  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  can  best  be  studied  by  one  unfa 
miliar  with  the  native  tongue  from  its  several  census  reports.  A  census  is 
taken  every  six  years.  The  last  report  is  for  the  year  1890.  From  this  it 
appears  that  the  whole  population  numbers  89,990.  This  number  includes  na 
tives,  or,  to  use  another  designation,  Kanakas,  half-castes  (persons  containing 
an  admixture  of  other  than  native  blood  in  any  proportion  with  it),  Hawaiian- 
born  foreigners  of  all  races  or  nationalities  other  than  natives,  Americans, 
British,  Germans,  French,  Portuguese,  Norwegians,  Chinese,  Polynesians,  and 
other  nationalities. 

(In  all  the  official  documents  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  whether  in  relation 
to  population,  ownership  of  property,  taxation,  or  any  other  question,  the  desig 
nation  "  American,"  "  Briton,"  "  German,"  or  other  foreign  nationality  does  not 
discriminate  between  the  naturalized  citizens  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  and  those 
owing  allegiance  to  foreign  countries.) 

Americans  number  1,928;  natives  and  half-castes,  40,612;  Chinese,  15,301; 
Japanese,  12,360;  Portuguese  8,602;  British,  1,344;  Germans,  1,034;  French,  70; 
Norwegians,  227;  Polynesians,  588;  and  other  foreigners,  419. 

It  is  well  at  this  point  to  say  that  of  the  7,495  Hawaiian-born  foreigners 
4,117  are  Portuguese,  1,701  Chinese  and  Japanese,  1,617  other  white  foreigners, 
and  60  of  other  nationalities. 

There  are  58,714  males.  Of  these,  18,364  are  pure  natives  and  3,085  are 
half-castes,  making  together  21,449.  Fourteen  thousand  five  hundred  and 
twenty-two  are  Chinese.  The  Japanese  number  10,079.  The  Portuguese  con 
tribute  4,770.  These  four  nationalities  furnish  50,820  of  the  male  population. 

Males. 

The    Americans     1,298 

The   British    982 

The    Germans     729 

The    French     46 

The    Norwegians     135 

These  five  nationalities  combined  furnish  3,170  of  the  total  male  population. 

The  first  four  nationalities  when  compared  with  the  last  five  in  male  popu 
lation,  are  nearly  sixteenfold  the  largest  in  number. 

The  Americans  are  to  those  of  the  four  aforementioned  group  of  nation 
alities  as  i  to  39 — nearly  as  I  to  40. 

Portuguese  have  been  brought  here  from  time  to  time  from  the  Madeira 
and  Azore  Islands  by  the  Hawaiian  Government  as  laborers  on  plantations,  just 
as  has  been  done  in  relation  to  Chinese,  Japanese,  Polynesians,  etc.  They  are 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  215 

the  most  ignorant  of  all  imported  laborers  and  reported  to  be  very  thievish. 
They  are  not  pure  Europeans,  but  a  commingling  of  many  races,  especially  the 
negro.  They  intermarry  with  the  natives  and  belong  to  the  laboring  classes. 
Very  few  of  them  can  read  and  write.  Their  children  are  being  taught  in  the 
public  schools,  as  all  races  are.  It  is  wrong  to  class  them  as  Europeans. 

Will  any  thoughtful  man  risk  the  assertion  that  it  is  desirable 
to  bring  about  the  amalgamation  of  such  a  population  with  our  own? 
Without  considering  the  degraded  foreign  element,  the  native  popula 
tion  furnishes  an  irresistible  argument  against  annexation.  I  doubt 
whether  there  are  many  people  in  the  world  more  the  subject  of  pity 
than  the  unfortunate  natives  who  are  gradually  yielding  to  the 
inroads  of  the  most  loathsome  diseases.  We  can  not  afford  to  deport 
the  natives.  We  have  no  right  to  sweep  them  from  the  face  of  the 
earth.  I  think  that  I  have  already  shown  that  we  can  not  decently 
act  without  consulting  their  wishes.  If  the  islands  are  annexed  to 
California,  candidates  for  office  may  experience  some  difficulty  in 
extending  their  visits  to  their  constituents  so  as  to  take  in  the  newly 
acquired  possessions,  2000  miles  removed  from  the  present  State. 
The  returns  from  the  enlightened  Hawaiian  precincts  would  be 
awaited  with  considerable  interest.  Should  annexation  be  brought 
about  we  must  be  just  to  the  Hawaiian  natives. 

These  islanders  are  the  proprietors  of  the  soil  by  designation  of  a 
power  beyond  ours.  They  were  placed  where  they  are  by  Omnipo 
tence  long  before  Mr.  Stevens  or  his  predecessors  in  goodness  com 
menced  to  exert  their  saving  influence.  We  recognize  the  right  of  a 
people  not  only  to  live  but  to  rule.  We  can  not  afford  to  destroy  the 
poorest  Hawaiian  native.  If  the  islands  are  to  be  ours  me  must  take 
those  "  to  the  manor  born  "  to  our  political  bosoms  and  throw  around 
them  the  equal  protection  of  those  laws  which  are  framed  for  the 
benefit  of  all  who  move  under  the  protection  of  our  flag. 

Therefore,  I  repeat  that  the  Provisional  Government  has  not  the 
stability  to  warrant  the  making  of  a  treaty ;  that  it  was  not  organized 
for  permanency,  but  for  a  specific  object,  to  wit,  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  away  the  country  it  professed  to  rule.  And  while  we  are  now 
holding  diplomatic  relations  with  Hawaii  as  an  independent  state,, 
notwithstanding  her  imperfect  organization,  we  may  well  doubt  the 
propriety  of  dealing  with  her  new  government  as  to  a  treaty  of  annex 
ation.  The  Provisional  Government  does  not  represent  the  people. 
We  can  not  annex  territory  under  mere  color  of  right.  Nations 
organized  for  conquest  may  not  regard  the  method  employed  to  extend 
their  confines,  but  we  must  be  not  only  technically  but  actually  right. 
Those*  whom  we  desire  to  absorb  must  consent,  and  such  consent  must 
be  unmistakably  proven  as  a  condition  precedent  to  our  action.  The 
islands  are  too  remote,  the  population,  undesirable.  We  have  now  an 
ample  supply  of  incompetent  citizens.  Our  stock  is  complete. 

If  we  concede  that  the  annexation  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  would 
result  in  adding  to  the  prosperity  of  this  country  and  redound  to  our 
lasting  pecuniary  advantage,  I  would  not  favor  the  project  as  long  as 
it  is  questionable  whether  such  annexation  can  be  honorably  brought 
about  under  existing  conditions.  Not  only  is  deliberation  necessary 
in  the  preparation  and  approval  of  a  treaty  involving  such  grave  sub 
jects,  but  it  is  essential,  as  I  have  hinted,  that  there  should  be  no 
question  as  to  the  right  of  those  who  suggest  the  adoption  of  the  com 
pact  to  enter  into  such  a  solemn  obligation.  Granting  that  Mr.  Stev 
ens  had  not  interfered  improperly  and  conceding  everything  which  he 


216  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

individually  did  to  be  regular  and  admitting  all  that  is  claimed  by  his 
friends,  the  fact  still  remains  that  the  Provisional  Government  is 
purely  experimental,  and  that  if  it  ever  received  any  authority,  that 
authority  was  for  a  limited  purpose  and  emanated  from  a  limited 
circle. 

It  is  not  claimed,  as  I  have  said,  that  this  institution  was  organ 
ized  for  permanent  purposes.  Herein  it  lacked  an  essential  of  gov 
ernment.  It  did  not  rest  upon  popular  suffrage.  And  herein  it 
lacked  representative  authority.  It  was  brought  about  admittedly  by 
the  action  of  a  few  courageous  and  determined  men  who  assert,  and 
perhaps  with  reason,  that  their  morality  and  ability  have  placed  them 
upon  a  plane  above  the  commonality.  Far  from  representing  the 
masses  of  the  people,  these  gentlemen  have  been  the  advocates  and 
defenders  of  a  constitution  which  curtailed  the  popular  right.  Hence, 
plainly  the  Provisional  Government  did  not  have  the  stability  and 
solidity  which  alone  can  empower  it  to  perform  the  supreme  functions 
of  abrogating  nationality  and  delivering  up  the  privileges  of  statehood. 
This  treaty  should  not  have  been  hastily  accepted  by  Mr.  Harrison. 

Nothing  had  occurred  on  the  part  of  our  citizens  to  warrant  such 
existing  celerity.  Modesty,  good  taste,  as  well  as  diplomatic  usage, 
dictated  the  keeping  of  the  matter  in  abeyance  until  the  advent  of  a 
President  who  had  already  been  elected  to  hold  for  a  full  term. 
Instantaneous  action  was  sought  and  the  future  was  relied  upon  to 
establish  the  title  of  those  who  proposed  the  treaty.  It  was  believed 
by  Mr.  Stevens  and  his  associates  that  if  the  last  Administration 
could  be  brought  to  engage  in  a  treaty  of  annexation  with  the  Dole 
establishment,  that  forthwith  the  people  of  Hawaii,  who  had  not  been 
consulted,  would  yield  readily  to  the  superior  force  of  the  United 
States.  It  was  well  reasoned  that  if  we  took  the  islands  under  that 
treaty  we  would  regard  the  native  population  as  rebellious  if  they 
subsequently  objected  to  the  annexation. 

Permit  me  again  to  assert  what  I  have  already  intimated :  that  I 
am  not  here  to  compare  the  respective  merits  of  the  small  American 
and  foreign  colony,  which  supports  Mr.  Dole,  with  the  native  popula 
tion.  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  Provisional  Government  represents 
the  most  advanced  intellectual  sentiment  of  the  islands,  but  I  unhesi 
tatingly  aver  that  this  does  not  constitute  any  justification  for  our 
departure  from  settled  principles  of  honesty  in  dealing  with  our 
neighbors ;  nor  does  it  warrant  us  as  a  civilized  and  Christian  nation 
in  a  policy  of  invasion  and  conquest;  and  if  we  abet  such  designs,  to 
say  nothing  of  our  participancy  therein,  we  will  deserve  and  receive 
the  contempt  of  mankind. 

THE  FOREIGN    POLICY    OF    PRESIDENT    CLEVELAND    SUFFERS    NOTHING    WHEi.    COMPARED 
WITH    THAT   OF    HIS    PREDECESSOR. 

There  is  another  matter  to  which  I  deem  it  proper  to  briefly 
allude. 

My  friend,  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Illinois  [Mr.  CUL- 
LOM],  further  said: 

Heretofore  the  diplomatic  history  of  the  United  States,  with  trivial  excep 
tions,  has  been  a  bright  and  glorious  record,  and  its  precedents  have  become 
standards  of  international  procedure.  Until  now  liberty,  justice,  and  honor 
have  been  the  legends  inscribed  upon  each  diplomatic  act  bearing  the  approval 
of  American  Presidents  and  Secretaries  of  State.  No  citizen  of  this  country 
has  ever  before  been  called  to  hide  his  head  when  challenged  upon  the  theater 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  217 

of   the   world,   and    forced    to    acknowledge    the    disgrace    and   shame  of   the 
Republic. 

Mr.  President,  we  will  not  remain  silent  listening  to  such  asser 
tions  made  against  those  who  are  acting  in  good  faith  for  the  perpet 
uation  of  principles  in  which  we  believe  and  to  the  enforcement  of 
which  we  have  pledged  our  best  efforts.  We  can  well  afford  to  com 
pare  the  foreign  policy  of  this  Administration  with  that  of  its  imme 
diate  predecessor,  knowing  that  we  will  not  thereby  suffer.  I  intend 
to  speak  from  the  record,  and  in  describing  the  incident  to  which  it  is 
my  design  to  direct  consideration,  I  will  utter  nothing  that  can  not  be 
easily  proven  to  be  precisely  correct. 

It  has  been  argued  in  this  Chamber,  and  reiterated  with  great 
emphasis  elsewhere,  that  the  present  Administration  is  not  in  sym 
pathy  with  republicanism,  and  that  it  is  seeking  to  maintain  monarchi 
cal  institutions  abroad,  and  it  is  sought  to  justify,  or  at  least  mitigate 
the  peculiar  behavior  of  the  late  minister  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands  by 
the  claim  that  his  conduct  if  questionable,  was,  after  all,  in  the  interest 
of  free  government. 

The  hollow  nature  of  this  pretense  can  be,  and  I  trust  has  been 
exposed  otherwise  than  by  the  argument  which  I  am  about  to  make 
but  I  desire  to  show  that  not  only  the  late  Executive  and  the  then 
Department  of  State,  but  likewise  many  who  elsewhere  are  loudest 
in  their  so-called  patriotic  demands,  did  but  lately  engage  in  a  most 
unwarranted  attack  upon  the  people  struggling  for  free  constitutional 
rights. 

In  the  year  1891,  the  people  of  Chile  were  torn  asunder  by  revo 
lutionary  conflict.  The  President  of  the  Republic  had  assumed  pow 
ers  in  defiance  of  the  constitution,  in  consequence  with  which  it  was 
his  duty  to  administer  his  trust. 

The  highest  court  of  the  Republic  had  decided  against  him,  and 
the  great  majority  of  the  Chilean  Congress  had  also  pronounced 
adversely  to  his  pretensions.  Instead  of  yielding  obedience  to  the 
laws  of  the  land,  he  announced  himself  a  dictator.  He  promulgated 
a  decree  which  contained,  among  other  things,  the  following: 

SANTIAGO,  January  7,  1891. 

I  decree  that  from  this  date  I  assurrte  all  public  power  necessary  for 
administering  and  governing  the  State  and  maintaining  order  in  the  interior. 
Therefore,  from  this  moment,  every  law  that  would  forbid  the  exercise  of  the 
powers  required  for  preserving  order  and  tranquillity  in  the  interior  and  security 
in  the  exterior  of  the  State,  is  suspended. 

By  his  unauthenticated  fiat  he  declared  that  all  laws  which, 
according  to  his  opinion,  were  inimical  to  the  state,  should  be  then 
and  there  suspended.  The  supreme  court  and  the  court  of  appeals 
decided  against  him  and  determined  in  favor  of  the  Congressionalists, 
and  he  at  once  issued  this  edict : 

That  the  regular  and  ordinary  functions  of  the  supreme  court  and  the  court 
of  appeals,  in  the  abnormal  and  extraordinary  situation,  created  by  the  revolu 
tion  and  the  anarchy  of  those  who  have  commenced  and  sustain  it,  will  prevent 
the  task  of  pacification  demanded  by  the  highest  national  interests,  and  will  pro 
duce  conflicts  that  will  augment  the  misfortunes  that  afflict  the  republic.  I  have 
resolved,  and  I  decree,  until  further  orders,  the  functions  of  the  supreme  court 
and  the  court  of  appeals  are  suspended. 

Thus  did  this  man  assume  absolute  power.  Thus  did  he  in  defi 
ance  of  republican  principles  declare,  "  I  am  the  State."  The  mem- 

15 


218  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

bers  of  congress  were  compelled  to  flee  to  escape  his  cruelty  and  per 
secution.  They  took  refuge  in  the  navy,  for  the  navy  was  true  to  the 
law.  War  was  waged,  one  side  represented  by  Balmaceda,  who  acted 
against  the  constitution;  the  other  was  composed  of  patriots  seeking 
to  maintain  the  constitution. 

Concurrently  with  the  promulgation  of  these  decrees,  more 
despotic  than  any  issued  within  the  last  thirty  years  by  any  semi- 
civilized  government,  this  despot  sacrificed  the  lives  of  numbers  of  his 
fellow-citizens  who  had  dared  to  verbally  protest  against  his  out 
rageous  defiance  of  that  constitution  which  was  adopted  as  the  result 
of  the  triumph  of  brave  men  over  the  imperial  armies  of  Spain.  To 
use  the  language  of  Judge  Hanford  of  the  court  of  appeals  of  the 
ninth  circuit  (56  Fed.  Rep.,  505  et  seq.)  : 

The  Congressional  party,  instead  of  being  an  organization  of  rebels  against 
the  Government  of  Chile,  was,  in  fact,  composed  of  and  controlled  by  the  legis 
lative  branch  of  the  national  government  and  was  supported  by  a  considerable 
part  of  its  military  and  naval  forces.  The  object  of  the  Congressional  party  was 
not  revolution  but  the  preservation  of  the  Government  by  deposing  Balmaceda 
for  maladministration  of  his  office.  Balmaceda  was  not  the  government.  He 
was  merely  the  highest  officer  and  head  of  the  government.  The  struggle,  there 
fore,  was  not  between  the  government  and  a  faction,  but  between  the  chief 
departments  of  the  government.  While  it  continued,  the  condition  of  affairs  was 
similar  to  what  might  have  been  brought  about  in  the  United  States  if  a  suffi 
cient  number  of  Senators  had  voted  for  the  impeachment  of  President  Andrew 
Johnson,  and  the  vote  had  been  followed  by  an  attempt  on  his  part  to  forcibly 
resist  removal  from  office. 

Under  these  conditions  the  last  Administration  not  only  refused 
to  recognize  the  justice  of  the  cause  of  the  Congressional  party,  as 
those  who  were  supporting  the  Chilean  constitution  were  designated, 
but  it  even  refused  to  recognize  them  at  all.  Mr.  Harrison  declined 
to  permit  the  agents  of  the  Congressional  party  to  enter  the  State 
Department  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  their  claims,  and  the  Presi 
dent  rejected  their  solicitation  for  personal  audience.  Every  obstruc 
tion  possible  was  thrown  in  their  pathway,  and  when  Jorge  Montt,  the 
then  admiral  of  the  Chilean  fleet  and  the  present  President  of  that 
Republic,  sent  to  the  city  of  San  Diego  an  ordinary  passenger  and 
freight  steamer  for  the  purpose  of  getting  supplies,  our  Government 
denied  her  clearance  papers,  and  when  she  left  the  harbor  of  San 
Diego  and  afterwards  took  on  board  in  unbroken  packages  $80,000 
worth  of  arms,  purchased  from  an  American  firm  and  paid  for  at  the 
market  rates,  one  of  our  ships  of  war,  the  Charleston,  was  dispatched 
to  Chile,  and  the  Itata  was  brought  back  with  her  cargo  to  San  Diego, 
and  a  Chilean  congressman,  together  with  two  American  citizens,  who 
had  engaged  in  the  purchase  of  the  arms,  were  arrested  and  charged 
with  a  violation  of  the  neutrality  laws  of  the  United  States ;  and  they 
were  charged,  among  other  things,  with  having  fitted  out  and  armed 
the  Itata  for  the  purpose  and  with  the  intent  that  that  vessel  should  be 
employed  in  the  service  of  a  foreign  people,  to  cruise  and  commit 
hostilities  against  the  Republic  of  Chile.  There  was,  in  fact,  no  legal 
ground  for  this  seizure,  as  the  United  States  district  court  and  the 
court  of  appeals  have  decided. 

This  conduct  upon  the  part  of  our  Government  in  thus  practically 
taking  sides  against  a  people  seeking  a  constitutional  government  was 
in  itself  bad  enough,  but  my  criticism  is  not  leveled  so  much  at  this 
behavior,  or  misbehavior,  of  the  last  Administration,  but  the  subse 
quent  transactions  present  a  story  of  outrage  unparalleled  in  our  his- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  219 

tory.  In  the  latter  part  of  August  and  the  first  part  of  September, 
1891,  the  Congressional  forces  met  those  of  Balmaceda  and  in  two 
pitched  battles  utterly  routed  the  dictator's  army  and  marched  in 
triumph  into  Valparaiso. 

The  issue  was  thus  settled,  and  under  all  the  authorities  the 
result  of  war  definitely  ascertained,  foreign  governments  were  bound 
to  accept  the  same. 

On  September  4,  1891,  when  Balmaceda  was  a  fugitive  from  the 
wrath  of  his  countrymen,  when  he  had  scarcely  a  friend  on  earth 
outside  of  those  in  charge  of  the  Government  of  this  Republic,  when 
the  associates  of  those  whom  he  had  murdered  and  the  citizens  of  that 
Republic  which  he  had  shamefully  betrayed,  were  seeking  him  with 
terrible  earnestness,  our  Government  sent  a  dispatch  to  6ur  resident 
minister  to  the  effect  that  if  a  government  was  installed  and  accepted 
by  the  people  of  Chile,  the  same  should  be  recognized ;  and  on  the  7th 
day  of  September  that  officer,  Mr.  Egan,  notified  the  State  Depart 
ment  that  he  was  in  cordial  communication  with  the  Provisional  Gov 
ernment,  established  September  4,  of  which  Jorge  Montt  was  chief. 

One  would  have  supposed  that  the  opening  of  diplomatic  rela 
tions  with  the  new  authority  and  the  utter  annihilation  of  the  Balma- 
cedan  regime  would  necessarily  have  resulted  in  the  dismissal  of  pro 
ceedings  against  members  of  the  new  government  and  against  its  rep 
resentatives,  as  those  prosecutions  depended  upon  the  assertion  that 
the  vessel  complained  of  and  the  cargo  sought  to  be  confiscated  were 
to  be  used,  and  that  the  defendants  indicted  were  waging  war  against 
Chile,  with  which  the  United  States  was  at  peace,  and  it  being  then 
the  fact  that  there  was  no  Chile  save  that  represented  by  these  very 
men  who  were  charged  in  the  proceedings  thus  instituted  with  having 
attempted  to  destroy  a  nation  which  recognized  them  as  her  loyal 
and  devoted  citizens. 

Under  these  conditions  this  Government  was  bound,  not  only  in 
law,  but  in  fairness,  and  in  that  spirit  of  friendship  which  she  pro 
fessed  to  entertain  toward  Chile,  to  at  once  abandon  its  hostile  attitude, 
regretting  that  the  same  was  ever  inaugurated.  But  the  Administra 
tion,  so  anxious  to  establish  a  new  condition  of  things  in  the  Hawaiian 
Islands,  so  solicitous  for  the  extension  of  republican  influences,  so 
ready  to  acknowledge  a  provisional  government  which  had  given  no 
proof  of  its  ability  to  endure,  not  only  declined  to  dismiss  these  cases, 
but  on  October  20,  1891,  more  than  a  month  after  the  recognition  of 
the  new  government  and  after  Balmaceda  had  acted  as  his  own  exe 
cutioner,  placed  Mr.  Ricardo  Trumbull,  and  those  who  had  been  asso 
ciated  with  him  in  obtaining  a  cargo  for  the  Itata,  on  trial  and  sought 
to  convict  him  of  a  high  misdemeanor,  under  the  provisions  of  sec 
tions  5283,  5285,  and  5286  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the  United 
States. 

Here  was  our  Government,  pretending  to  be  the  friend  of  republi 
canism,  striving  to  make  a  criminal  out  of  a  man  who  had  imperiled 
himself  in  a  service  which  was  intrinsically  honorable,  and  which, 
because  of  the  issue  of  war,  was  legally  determined  to  be  just,  and 
which  our  Government  had  recognized  as  being  patriotic  and  legiti 
mate.  But  the  United  States  court,  upon  the  testimony  of  the  prose 
cution,  adjudicated  that  no  case  was  made  out,  and  the  jury  rendered 
a  verdict  of  "  not  guilty."  But  the  end  was  not  yet.  Still  maintain 
ing  its  unrepublican  policy,  the  same  patriots  who  joined  with  Mr. 
Stevens  in  the  overthrow  of  a  friendly  government,  pressed  the  admi- 


220  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

ralty  cases  against  the  Chilean  vessel  and  her  cargo,  employed  special 
counsel  —  very  excellent  and  able  gentlemen,  who  were  compensated 
through  the  Department  of  Justice  —  to  press  with  every  energy  the 
demand  that  the  forfeiture  should  be  decreed. 

But  the  district  court  again  decided  against  the  Government,  and 
from  this  decision,  as  late  as  March,  an  appeal  was  taken  to  the  cir 
cuit  court  of  appeals  for  the  ninth  circuit,  the  Attorney-General  hav 
ing  failed  to  obtain  a  certiorari  bringing  the  cause  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  Meantime  the  Itata  had  been  released 
upon  bond  and  had  gone  back  to  Chile  and  was  engaged  in  mercantile 
pursuits ;  and  had  a  decree  been  rendered  in  favor  of  the  United  States 
and  had  recourse  upon  the  bondsmen  failed  there  would  have  been  no 
method  of  enforcing  the  judgment  save  by  seizure  of  this  vessel  carry 
ing  the  Chilean  flag  in  Chilean  waters ;  and  such  seizure  would  have 
been  an  execution  of  the  judgment  pronounced  against  a  vessel, 
because  it  was  engaged  in  a  service  patriotic,  lawful,  and  approved  by 
the  affirmative  recognition  of  all  our  judicial  and  executive  authori 
ties. 

The  appeal  was  urged,  and  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  those  who 
represented  Chile,  the  late  Administration  pressed  it  to  final  issue,  and 
on  the  8th  of  May,  1893,  the  circuit  court  of  appeals,  composed  of 
three  judges  —  all  appointed  by  Mr.  Harrison  —  confirmed  the  judg 
ment  of  the  lower  court,  and  finally  settled  the  case  against  the  United 
States. 

I  refer  to  these  matters  as  demonstrating  that  the  Administration 
which  supported  and  assisted  Mr.  Stevens  in  his  unjustifiable  work 
was  not  in  quest  of  new  fields  for  liberty,  but  was  anxious  to  gain 
that  applause  given  by  the  unthinking  to  those  who  subvert  and 
destroy. 

Nothing  can  better  illustrate  the  unrepublican  disposition  of  the 
late  Administration  than  the  facts  which  I  have  cited  from  judicial 
records  regarding  the  Chilean  controversy,  and  nothing  can  better 
disclose  the  misguided  disposition  which  prevailed  in  the  councils  of 
those  whom  the  American  people  drove  from  authority. 

The  fitting  outcome  of  this  entire  transaction  has  been  the  decis 
ion,  just  rendered  by  the  joint  commission,  which  has  had  under  con 
sideration  the  contested  claims  existing  between  this  Government  and 
Chile,  to  the  effect  that  our  seizure  of  the  Itata  was  without  even 
probable  cause.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  how  any  other  conclusion 
could  have  been  reached,  since  our  courts  from  the  Santissima  Trini 
dad  (7  Wheaton)  to  this  day,  and  our  diplomats  from  Secretary 
Pickering  to  Secretary  Evarts  uniformly  avowed  that  there  is  no  law 
or  regulation  forbidding  any  person  or  government  from  purchasing 
arms  from  citizens  of  the  United  States  and  shipping  them  at  the  risk 
of  the  purchaser.  Such  also  was  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  Hamilton,  which 
fully  accorded  with  the  view  expressed  by  Judge  Story  in  the  case  first 
cited. 

It  is  proper  for  me  to  say  that  the  late  Attorney-General  was  so 
solicitous  for  the  confiscation  of  a  vessel  and  cargo  of  a  power  with 
which  we  were  then  at  peace,  and  with  whose  citizens  and  Government 
we  desired  to  preserve  friendly  relations,  that  he  actually  contended 
before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  upon  an  application 
for  a  writ  of  certiorari,  which  was  denied,  and  afterwards  argued  in  a 
brief,  which  he  filed  in  the  circuit  court  of  appeals,  that  a  judgment 
should  be  rendered  in  favor  of  the  United  States  upon  the  ground 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  221 

that  the  representative  of  the  present  Chilean  Government  and  his 
associates  were  pirates,  and  were  therefore  entitled  to  no  consideration 
whatever. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  add  that  he  remained  lonesome  in  this  advo 
cacy.  If  any  person  considers  this  episode  a  triumph  of  diplomacy, 
I  am  content  to  leave  him  to  his  fate. 

MR.    CLEVELAND    HAS    NEVER    SOUGHT    TO    INTERFERE    WITH    A    FOREIGN    GOVERNMENT. 

It  has  been  asserted  that  the  Administration  assumed  the  right  to 
interfere  with  a  foreign  government.  Exactly  the  contrary  is  the 
truth.  It  is  against  interference  with  a  foreign  government  that  Mr. 
Cleveland  has  protested,  and  if  he  is  pressing  any  doctrine  it  is  that 
which  Senators  profess  to  be  so  fond  of,  that  this  Government  must 
in  no  case  invade  the  territory  of  another.  The  President  takes  the 
position  that  we  should  undo  what  we  have  wrongfully  done ;  that 
having  invaded  a  foreign  territory,  and  having  changed  the  govern 
ment  of  that  territory,  we  should  place  matters  as  they  were  before  the 
invasion  occurred,  and  this  for  the  purpose  of  more  clearly  and 
emphatically  establishing  a  doctrine  which  has  not  been  disputed  in 
this  debate,  that  in  no  case  should  we  destroy  the  government  of 
another  nation. 

The  efforts  of  Mr.  Cleveland  to  restore  the  Queen  were  in  the 
nature  of  a  protest  against  previous  illegal  acts  of  a  representative 
of  our  Government.  He  sought  to  undo  as  far  as  possible  the 
improper  transactions  of  a  diplomatic  agent.  He  repudiated  and  con 
demned  that  agent's  conduct.  He  adopted  the  most  positive  method 
in  carrying  out  this  laudable  purpose.  More  he  could  not  do,  and  he 
accordingly  recommended  the  matter  to  Congress.  President  Harri 
son  recognized  the  new  order.  So  did  President  Cleveland.  It  is 
said,  as  I  have  remarked,  that  under  certain  conditions  the  recognition 
of  belligerent  rights  can  not  be  withdrawn.  Such,  at  least,  is  the  rule 
stated  by  Mr.  Hall  (International  Law,  third  edition,  page  37). 
Whether  this  rule  applies  to  the  acknowledgment  of  independence  it 
is  unnecessary  to  discuss ;  but  assuming  such  to  be  the  case,  if  the 
recognition  is  procured  by  a  conspiracy  to  which  the  beneficiaries  are 
parties,  I  imagine  that  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  power  to  revoke,  saving 
harmless,  of  course,  third  parties  who  have  acted  bona  fide. 

If  the  Dole  administration  is  an  institution  of  this  Government, 
created  by  our  late  minister;  if  it  was  established  and  supported  by 
our  action ;  if  we  were  actually  in  control  of  the  premises,  then  we  had 
a  right  to  withdraw  that  support  and  undo  the  mischief  done. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  Provisional  Government  was 
not  organized  for  permanency,  but  was  explicitly  formed  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  procuring  the  United  States  to  extend  its  jurisdiction  over 
the  islands.  When  we  speak  of  the  de  facto  government  we  allude  to 
an  institution  having  present  existence  and  exercising  certain  func 
tions.  This  government  did  not  pretend  to  be  formed  for  the  pur 
pose  for  which  a  nation  organizes  itself.  But  Mr.  Dole  and  his  asso 
ciates  were  empowered  by  themselves  to  act  as  agents  in  transferring 
to  the  United  States  the  soil  and  independence  of  the  Hawaiian 
Islands.  The  testimony  of  Mr.  Soper,  another  annexationist,  estab 
lishes  that  the  Queen  believed  that  she  was  surrendering  to  the  United 
States,  and  the  provisional  people  concede  that  they  submitted  to  the 
United  States  the  question  whether  their  government  should  or  should 


222  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

not  exist,  *.  e.,  whether  this  nation  would  consent  to  absorb  it. 

Under  all  these  circumstances  the  Queen  was  justified  in  suppos 
ing  that  the  Executive  would  act  in  the  capacity  of  mediator,  and  Mr. 
Cleveland  was  certainly  authorized  to  extend  some  supervision  and  to 
make  some  inquiry  concerning  the  situation  which  involved  an  attempt 
to  extend  the  dominion  of  the  United  States  over  the  islands.  No  one 
in  all  our  history  has  more  thoroughly  emphasized  than  Mr.  Cleveland 
the  duty  of  this  Republic  to  attend  to  its  own  affairs  and  to  avoid 
meddling  in  foreign  politics. 

In  conclusion,  Mr.  President,  permit  me  to  say  that  I  am  not 
prepared  to  defend  every  officer  of  this  or  any  other  Administration, 
merely  because  his  politics  and  mine  may  harmonize,  but  I  insist  that 
justice  shall  be  done. 

Mr.  Cleveland  has  done  or  attempted  to  do  substantially  justice, 
and  he  has  done  that  which  honor  dictated.  His  protest  against  the 
continuance  of  the  present  Government  of  Hawaii  was  made  that  a 
record  might  be  written  showing  his  detestation  as  our  chosen  Execu 
tive,  of  a  cunning  and  fraudulent  scheme  by  which  a  change  of  sys 
tems  eventuated  which  otherwise  would  never  have  been  brought 
about.  He  made  that  protest,  and  then  committed  the  whole  subject 
to  the  House  of  Representatives  and  Senate.  It  is  before  Congress 
now. 

The  resolution  submitted  to  the  Senate  embodies  an  expression 
to  the  effect  that  we  should  acknowledge  conditions  as  they  are. 
Months  have  gone  by.  It  is  impossible  to  prognosticate  the  future, 
but  the  status  is  such  and  has  been  so  long  continued,  that  it  is 
undoubtedly  in  our  interests  in  accord  with  sound  policy  and  proper 
in  every  regard  to  recognize  the  present  Government,  to  declare  that 
no  foreign  power  shall  interfere,  and  to  place  here  upon  record  the 
solemn  assertion  that  we  will  not  conclude  a  treaty  of  annexation. 
This  recognition  becomes  inevitable  when  we  consider  the  continued 
reception  of  diplomatic  agents  (Hall's  International  Law,  page  94; 
Field's  Pro-International  Code,  section  118),  as  well  as  the  long  con 
tinued  dominancy  of  the  Dole  supremacy. 

It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  determine  what  may  be  done  under 
conditions  differing  from  those  presented.  It  is  not  necessary  for 
immediate  purposes  to  enter  into  any  such  debate.  Suffice  it  to  say, 
that,  dealing  with  this  question  as  it  now  stands,  we  are  in  favor  of 
maintaining  the  status  quo  to  the  extent  that  our  mere  declarations 
will  do  so,  not  because  we  approve  of  wrongful  acts,  but  because, 
under  prevailing  exigencies  not  of  the  creation  of  this  Administration, 
it  is  unwise  to  adopt  any  other  course.  We  affirm  and  approve  of  the 
action  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  withdrawing  the 
treaty,  not  necessarily  for  all  the  reasons  which  I  have  stated  — • 
though  all  are  good  reasons  to  me  —  but  because  of  the  varied  sur 
roundings  upon  which  I  have  sought  to  comment. 

I  shall  not  resume  my  seat  without  responding  for  an  instant  to 
something  said  by  the  able  and  eloquent  Senator  from  Maine  [Mr. 
FRY£]  who  a  few  days  ago,  in  speaking  with  mingled  sarcasm  and 
disappointment  of  the  unanimity  displayed  by  Democratic  Senators 
in  supporting  the  election  repeal  bill,  alluded  to  our  failure  to  act 
together  upon  the  financial  issue  (forgetting  that  residents  of  fragile 
structures  should  be  conservative),  and  boldly  prophesied  that  we 
would  be  unable  to  concentrate  our  forces  upon  the  Hawaiian  or  other 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  223 

issues.  "  Sufficient  for  the  day  is  the  evil  thereof."  No  doubt  my 
friend  and  his  associates  are  solicitous.  Well  may  they  be  solicitous. 
I  question  whether  any  one  upon  the  other  side  will  regret  a  division 
in  our  ranks,  and  I  venture  to  remark  that  our  adversaries  fear  our 
unbroken  front. 

I  dislike  to  say  that  which  is  unpleasant.  I  would  not  harrow 
the  tender  sensibilities  of  those  who  claim  to  be  so  anxious  for  our 
comfort,  but  I  can  not  in  candor  do  otherwise  than  to  express  the 
opinion  that  my  Republican  friends  will  have  to  meet  a  united  Democ 
racy.  The  Democratic  party  is  composed  of  men  of  thought  and 
intelligence;  men  who  act  upon  principle.  They  will  often  differ  as 
to  detail,  but  whenever  the  individual  can  not  otherwise  bring  about 
concerted  action,  he  will  make  any  concession  short  of  sacrificing  his 
conscientious  conviction.  The  financial  question  is  one  upon  which 
party  lines  can  not  be  drawn.  Some  Democrats  may  differ  from  the 
President  as  to  his  views  upon  silver.  I  have  done  so  and  have  not 
changed  my  opinion.  Some  may  occasionally  and  at  long  intervals 
not  agree  with  him  as  to  the  advisability  of  a  nomination,  just  as  other 
Senators  have  disagreed  with  other  Presidents;  but  do  not  flatter 
yourselves,  my  Republican  friends,  that  any  process  of  disintegration 
is  at  work  here,  or  that  I  and  my  colleagues  contemplate  suicide. 

We  are  and  will  be  ready  for  you.  You  may  have  observed  that 
we  made  no  loss  upon  the  election  repeal  matter.  Our  majority  was 
quite  comfortable.  We  are  prepared  to  stand  by  a  Democratic  Admin 
istration.  We  may  criticise  a  little,  but  do  not  be  misled  by  this,  for  a 
small-sized  family  row  does  not  mean  divorce  a  vinculo.  We  have 
followed  Mr.  Cleveland  through  three  campaigns.  We  are  not  pre 
pared  to  recant  or  to  retrograde.  He  called  our  attention  to  an  almost 
lost  party  policy,  not  merely  that  the  organization  to  which  he  and  we 
belong  should  be  successful,  but  that  the  country  might  have  the 
benefit  of  wise  laws  and  a  statesmanlike  administration  thereof,  and, 
while  he  was  temporarily  set  aside,  nevertheless  the  principles  which 
he  announced  soon  became  the  battle  cry  of  our  triumphant  legions. 
The  President  may  not  be  perfect;  to  assert  that  he  was  so  consti 
tuted  would  be  to  deny  his  humanity.  We  do  not  claim  as  much  for 
him  in  that  respect  as  our  modest  opponents  daily  claim  for  them 
selves.  Mr.  Cleveland  has  for  many  years,  notwithstanding  the 
doubts  of  individuals  and  the  slanders  of  political  adversaries,  had  the 
respect  and  admiration  of  the  best  minds  of  his  country  to  a  greater 
extent  than  any  other  man. 

Upon  the  pending  resolution,  Mr.  President,  while  I  doubt  not  that 
Senators  upon  this  side  of  the  Chamber  will  differ  as  to  mere  phrase 
ology,  there  is  not  one  of  us,  I  imagine,  who  doubts  that  the  two 
propositions  which  I  have  attempted  to  defend  should  be  decided 
affirmatively,  and  I  am  led  to  hope  even  our  friends  upon  the  other 
side  will  for  once  join  in  our  good  work. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  wish  to  cite  to  the  Senator  from  California, 
in  whose  speech  I  have  been  much  interested,  a  point  which  I  think 
he  has  forgotten.  I  am  more  concerned  about  the  law  of  this  case 
and  what  is  to  be  done,  as  I  said  the  other  day,  than  I  am  as  to  what 
has  been  done. 

The  Senator  from  California  lays  down  a  proposition  of  law 
from  which  I  wish  to  dissent.  He  will  find  a  great  abundance  of 
authority  in  the  text-books  in  support  of  the  proposition  which  he 
lays  down.  There  is  no  question,  however,  but  that  the  doctrine  that 


224  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

a  change  of  government  means  a  practical  withdrawal  of  the  minister 
accredited  to  that  government  has  become  obsolete.  The  modern 
practice  is  that  the  minister  continues  under  the  new  government. 

I  call  the  attention  of  the  Senator  to  the  fact  that  in  1848,  when 
the  State  Department  was  presided  over  by  Mr.  Buchanan,  whom  we 
all  recognize  as  a  very  able  diplomat  and  a  very  able  man,  a  very 
sudden  revolution  occurred  in  France,  and  the  American  minister  was 
the  first  minister  to  recognize  the  new  republic.  The  ministers  of  the 
other  governments  followed,  but,  as  Mr.  Polk  said  in  his  next  mes 
sage,  it  was  very  fitting  and  very  proper  that  our  minister  should  have 
been  the  first. 

Not  only  did  the  minister  continue  to  exercise  the  duties  of  his 
office  without  any  new  appointment,  but  Mr.  Buchanan,  in  words  of 
the  highest  praise,  spoke  of  his  recognition  of  the  French  Republic. 

The  President  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Polk,  in  his  next  annual 
message  —  I  shall  not  read  it,  though  I  have  here  before  me  both  of 
his  messages  on  the  subject  —  spoke  in  terms  of  the  highest  approba 
tion  of  the  fact  that  our  minister  had  promptly  recognized  the  new 
republic,  and  then  referred  to  the  sympathy  which  we  naturally  feel 
for  the  French  people. 

So  I  want  to  say  to  the  Senator  that  in  modern  times  that  doc 
trine  is  not  in  practice  anywhere,  and,  as  he  must  know,  every  repre 
sentative  of  a  foreign  power  at  the  Hawaiian  Islands  recognized  the 
new  government  without  waiting  to  hear  from  the  home  government. 
So  the  old  idea  has  fallen  into  disrepute. 

I  wish  to  say  one  other  word.  There  seems  to  be  a  little  com 
plaint  that  there  was  a  sympathy  going  out  from  our  representative 
when  this  old,  effete,  and  farcical  monarchy  was  to  be  destroyed,  a  sort 
of  opera  bouffe,  as  somebody  has  called  it,  and  properly  so.  I  have 
not  any  doubt  that  there  was?  and  I  should  be  ashamed  of  an  American 
minister  who  did  not  feel  that  way.  That  has  always  been  the  boast 
of  this  country.  It  can  be  found  in  the  letter  of  one  of  our  distin 
guished  Secretaries  of  State,  in  which  he  said,  speaking  of  one  of  the 
South  American  revolutions,  that  it  was  our  openly  expressed  sym 
pathy  which  prevented  intervention  and  assisted  those  people  in  main 
taining  the  contest  with  the  mother  country. 

It  has  always  been  so.  When  Mexico  was  fighting  Spain  we  did 
not  conceal  our  sympathy  anywhere.  We  made  it  apparent  to  the 
whole  world  that  we  were  on  their  side ;  but  when  later  Mexico  was 
brought  into  trouble  by  European  intervention,  in  every  department 
of  the  Government,  in  every  phase  of  American  life,  we  proclaimed 
our  sympathy  with  the  existing  affairs.  When  the  Mexican  Govern 
ment  had  been  reduced  in  numbers  to  such  an  extent  that  the  president 
fled  to  the  frontier,  preparatory  to  stepping  across  our  line  if  it  was 
necessary,  accompanied,  as  I  have  been  told  by  good  authority,  with 
only  32  men,  and  when,  for  his  daily  bread,  he  depended  upon  the 
contributions  of  the  patriotic  people  of  that  country,  we  proclaimed 
everywhere  that  he  was  the  legal  executive  of  Mexico,  and  our  great 
minister,  Mr.  Seward,  said  to  France: 

As  we  do  now,  we  shall  continue  to  recognize  Gen.  Juarez  as  the  constitu 
tional  executive  of  Mexico. 

There  has  been  a  time  when  we  were  not  so  afraid  as  we  are 
to-day  of  expressing  sympathy  against  monarchies  and  in  favor  of  a 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  225 

change  of  government  in  the  direction  of  greater  freedom  and  greater 
liberty. 

Mr.  President,  as  an  American  citizen  I  hope  the  day  is  far  dis 
tant  when  either  as  representatives,  as  officials,  or  as  citizens,  we  shall 
be  afraid  of  expressing  our  sympathy  with  advanced  liberal  ideas,  and 
when  we  see  a  throne  tottering,  whether  it  be  in  the  Sandwich  Islands 
or  in  Europe,  we  shall  express  our  gratitude  and  our  joy,  and,  as  far 
as  is  consistent  with  international  law,  our  determination  to  render  it 
such  assistance  as  may  make  it  effective. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  Mr.  President,  I  understood  the  Sena 
tor  to  say  that  a  minister  has  power  to  recognize  a  new  government. 
That  statement  has  the  merit  of  novelty.  It  was  never  made  before. 
I  stated,  and  I  affirm,  that  there  is  no  dispute  either  in  the  books  or  in 
practice  that  when  a  minister  recognizes  a  new  government,  as  was 
done  in  France  —  I  stated  that  I  was  perfectly  familiar  with  that  case 
-  he  depends  upon  the  ratification  of  his  act  by  the  home  government. 
He  has  absolutely  no  authority  to  personally  and  effectively  recognize 
any  government.  That  function  is  vested  by  the  Constitution  wholly 
in  the  Executive. 

When  he  is  accredited  to  a  king,  or  queen,  or  nation,  and  when 
that  government  is  swept  away,  it  is  for  the  state  which  accredited 
the  minister  —  not  for  the  minister  —  to  determine  whether  the  home 
government  shall  be  represented  at  the  foreign  court.  He  may  pos 
sess  personal  traits  which  would  not  fit  him  for  contact  with  the 
newly  constituted  authority,  or  perhaps  his  government  might  not 
wish  to  acknowledge  the  changed  conditions,  or  might  decline  to  sus 
tain  diplomatic  relations.  It  is  proper  for  the  minister  to  guard  the 
interests  of  his  countrymen  —  it  is  his  duty  to  do  so.  If  he  does 
recognize  the  new  state,  the  approval  of  his  government  will  justify 
his  act.  But  the  efficacy  of  his  declaration  is  dependent  wholly  upon 
the  ratification  of  his  government.  It  is  but  little  if  anything  more 
than  a  recommendation. 

Secondly,  the  Senator's  statement  regarding  his  leaning  towards 
republican  institutions  is  all  right ;  but  when  Mr.  Stevens  deliberately 
accepted  a  commission  directed  to  the  Queen  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands 
and  agreed  that  he  would  go  there  and  act  honorably  and  faithfully 
as  a  minister  of  this  Government  introduced  to  her,  the  "  great  and 
good  friend  "  of  President  Harrison  and  of  this  Government,  it  was 
his  duty  to  do  one  of  two  things  —  either  to  turn  back  as  soon  as  he 
found  he  could  not  deport  himself  in  friendliness,  or,  acting  there,  to 
do  so  in  good  faith  and  in  accordance  with  settled  custom. 

I  sympathize  with  democratic  institutions  as  sincerely  as  my 
friend,  and  I  concede  and  proclaim  the  illogical  character  of  monarchi 
cal  power.  For  myself,  I  wish  that  the  saving  influence  of  the  prin 
ciples  upon  which  we  act,  upon  which  we  depend,  and  to  which  we  are 
forever  anchored  might  prevail  and  control  other  peoples ;  but,  never 
theless,  I  believe  that  when  we  assume  an  obligation,  whether  it  be 
expressed  or  implied,  when  we  send  a  representative  to  a  foreign  gov 
ernment  we  disgrace  ourselves  if  we  decline  to  act  bona  fide,  or  fail 
to  remain  absolutely  free  of  entanglements  with  enemies  or  revolution 
ists  plotting  against  that  government.  If  its  character  is  not  such  as 
will  permit  us  to  consistently  maintain  relations,  then  we  should  with 
draw  from  the  distasteful  contact. 

We  must  not  appear  in  history  in  a  dual  character  and  should  not 


226  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

under  any  contingency  excuse  ourselves  by  the  pretense  that  the 
Queen  "  is  no  good  anyhow."  If  this  Queen  was  good  enough  to 
induce  the  sending  of  Mr.  Stevens  to  her  court,  if  she  was  virtuous 
enough  to  warrant  his  presentation  to  her,  and  if  she  was  meritorious 
enough  to  be  received  and  saluted  by  our  naval  officers  and  our  ves 
sels  of  war  just  as  any  other  foreign  potentate,  then  she  was  great 
enough  to  be  treated  with  candor  and  fairness. 

I  draw,  as  I  said  before,  no  distinction  as  to  the  duty  of  our  min 
ister  in  favor  of  a  powerful  state  as  contrasted  with  the  case  of  a 
weaker  nation.  My  preferences  I  will  express  elsewhere^  but  if  I 
proceed  as  minister  to  a  friendly  power  I  will  remain  faithful  to  my 
trust  or  decline  employment  for  which  I  am  not  competent. 

In  the  Mexican  case  we  studiously  refused  to  interfere.  We 
accorded  belligerent  rights  to  both  disputants.  The  letter  which  I 
read  at  length  from  Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton,  the  Senator  will  see, 
covers  the  subject.  There  is  no  question  that  we  sympathized  with 
the  South  American  republics  —  they  were  indeed  republics  springing 
from  the  popular  will  —  but  we  waited  for  seven  years  before  we 
recognized  their  independence,  although  they  had  won  absolute  free 
dom  —  although  during  nearly  all  that  time  they  had  been  completely 
removed,  so  far  as  the  administration  of  their  affairs  was  concerned, 
from  the  mother  country.  But  Mr.  Stevens  did  not  wait  seven  min 
utes  or  seven  seconds,  but  he  recognized  the  Provisional  Government 
before  the  Queen  had  been  dethroned,  and  without  any  proof  of  popu 
lar  acquiescence  and  without  the  pretense  of  necessity. 

I  see  nothing  in  the  statement  of  my  friend  which  in  any  way 
relieves  the  situation  so  far  as  Mr.  Stevens  and  his  aiders  and  abettors 
are  concerned. 

Mr.  TELLER.  With  the  permission  of  the  Senator  who  desires 
to  take  the  floor,  I  will  read  the  exact  language  of  Mr.  Buchanan. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     I  have  read  it  two  or  three  times. 

Mr.  TELLER.  And  I  think  the  Senator  will  see  that  I  am  per 
fectly  correct.  Our  minister  was  Mr.  Rush.  Few  men  of  greater 
accomplishments  have  ever  represented  this  country  abroad  than  Mr. 
Rush;  everybody  understands  that.  We  had  two  great  men  dealing 
with  the  subject,  one  as  minister  and  the  other  as  Secretary  of  State. 
Mr.  Buchanan,  in  writing  to  Mr.  Rush,  says : 

It  was  right  and  proper  that  the  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  pleni 
potentiary  from  the  United  States  should  be  the  first  to  recognize,  so  far  as  his 
powers  extended,  the  Provisional  Government  of  the  French  Republic.  Indeed, 
had  the  representative  of  any  other  nation  preceded  you  in  this  good  work,  it 
would  have  been  regretted  by  the  President. 

He  was  to  be  prompt.  Then  Mr.  Buchanan  goes  on  to  say  what 
I  shall  not  read,  for  I  do  not  wish  to  take  up  time,  but  he  says  substan 
tially  we  recognize  no  difference  between  a  de  facto  and  de  jure  gov 
ernment.  The  Senator  said  that  he  did  not ;  and  so  I  shall  not  waste 
any  time  on  that  point. 

What  does  President  Polk  say  in  his  special  message  of  April  3, 
1848?  I  read  it: 

The  prompt  recognition  of  the  new  Government  by  the  representative  of 
the  United  States  at  the  French  court  meets  my  full  and  unqualified  approba 
tion,  and  he  has  been  authorized  in  a  suitable  manner  to  make  known  this 
fact  to  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  French  Republic.  Called  upon  to  act 
upon  a  sudden  emergency,  which  could  not  have  been  anticipated  by  his  instruc- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  227 

tions,  he  judged  rightly  by  the  feelings  and  sentiments  of  his  Government  and 
of  his  countrymen,  when,  in  advance  of  the  diplomatic  representatives  of  other 
countries,  he  was  the  first  to  recognize,  so  far  as  it  was  in  his  power,  the  free 
government  established  by  the  French  people. 

Mr.  President,  for  the  first  time  in  my  life  I  have  heard  the 
declaration  that  the  representative  of  this  Government  going  to 
another  owed  some  fealty  to  the  Government  to  which  he  was  accred 
ited.  I  beg  the  Senator  to  understand  that  that  is  not  good  law.  Mr. 
Stevens  was  under  no  obligation  of  fealty  to  the  Queen  of  Hawaii. 
He  was  our  representative,  and  not  hers,  and  he  could  do  with  prompt 
ness  just  what  Mr.  Rush  did  in  the  affair  in  France.  There  is  no 
moral  turpitude  in  a  man  who  is  accredited  to  a  government,  recog 
nizing  the  destruction  of  that  government,  but  the  Senator  himself 
admitted  in  his  argument  that  a  minister  was  under  no  obligation  to 
assist  in  preserving  it.  I  admit  that  he  was  not  authorized  by  inter 
national  law  to  assist  in  destroying  it. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.     That  is  what  I  say. 

Mr.  TELLER.  But  if  he  should  assist  in  destroying  it,  I  say 
the  doctrine  laid  down  by  international  writers  everywhere,  as  I  said 
the  other  day,  has  been  that  vice  does  not  follow  the  government.  It 
was  so  laid  down  by  Mr.  Buchanan ;  it  has  been  so  laid  down  by  all 
our  writers  on  international  law,  and  by  a  number  of  our  Secretaries  of 
State. 

We  do  not  concern  ourselves,  said  Mr.  Buchanan  in  speaking  of 
another  case,  about  the  legality  of  the  organization.  Does  it  exist,  is 
all  we  inquire.  That  is  all  we  have  a  right  to  inquire.  If  we  get  back 
to  the  proposition,  which  I  think  is  the  only  one,  it  is  this :  The  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  said  he  thought  it  was  his  duty  to  destroy  the 
Provisional  Government  and  put  the  Queen  back  on  the  throne,  and 
the  Senator  from  California  says  he  thinks  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
President  to  do  so. 

The  President  has  devolved  that  duty  upon  Congress.  The  con 
clusion  would  have  been,  if  the  Senator  had  not  disclaimed  it,  that  the 
Senator  believes  that  the  duty  is  now  devolved  upon  us,  because  he 
has  not  told  us  when  that  ceased  to  be  our  duty,  if  it  was  the  duty  of 
the  President.  The  Senator  will  not  claim  that  it  is  our  duty  now  to 
destroy  the  existing  Government ;  he  will  not  declare  that,  because  he 
knows  that  American  sentiment  will  not  tolerate  it. 

I  have  gone  into  no  discussion  of  this  case  heretofore  as  to  the 
action  of  the  President,  and  I  do  not  intend  to  do  so  now.  I  have 
no  criticism  to  make  on  it,  because  criticism  is  not  of  any  profit  in  this 
condition  of  things.  I  have  not  examined  —  I  do  not  mean  to  say 
that  I  have  not  studied  the  question  —  but  I  mean  I  have  not  dis 
cussed  the  question  of  what  Mr.  Stevens  did.  Admit  that  everything 
he  did  was  wrong;  admit  that  the  President  was  right,  if  you  choose, 
on  the  one  side,  or  admit  on  the  other,  that  he  was  wrong,  the  question 
presented  is,  what  are  we  to  do?  The  matter  has  been  remitted  to  us. 

Shall  we  go  on  and  carry  out  what  the  President  attempted  to 
accomplish  and  failed,  or  shall  we  say  "  here  is  a  government  existing, 
no  matter  how  it  came  into  existence,  it  has  been  in  existence  a  year 
and  we  will  recognize  it,"  leaving  the  question  of  annexation  or  non- 
annexation  to  be  determined  afterwards  by  those  of  us  who  believe 
in  annexation,  and  are  in  favor  of  it,  and  those  who  do  not  believe 
in  it  and  are  against  it. 


228  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

The  practical  question  is,  are  we  going  to  keep  those  people  in 
turmoil?  Are  we  going  to  keep  a  minister  there  who  occupies  an 
attitude  of  semi-hostility  to  them,  as  I  have  no  doubt  the  minister 
believes  it  is  his  duty  to  maintain,  until  we  shall  declare  in  some 
authoritative  manner  that  we  disagree  with  the  views  which  the  Presi 
dent  entertained  at  the  time  he  sent  the  minister  out  or  sent  him  the 
instructions  under  which  he  is  still  acting? 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  There  are  some  people,  Mr.  Presi 
dent,  who  think  that  the  king  can  do  no  wrong;  there  are  some  Sena 
tors  who  believe  that  the  President  can  do  no  right. 

Mr.  TELLER.     I  do  not. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  Mr.  President,  my  friend  from 
Colorado  states  a  proposition  of  law  which  is  very  nearly  right.  If 
he  would  make  it  just  right,  we  should  not  have  any  dispute  about  this 
matter ;  but  he  changes  it  a  little  unwittingly,  I  think.  Of  course,  his 
views  may  be  accurate  and  mine  otherwise,  but  I  am  speaking  of  the 
subject  from  my  standpoint. 

The  French  case  furnishes  an  instance  where  our  minister  recog 
nized  a  republic. 

Mr.  TELLER.  No,  a  provisional  government.  It  was  not  a 
republic  then,  but  became  a  republic  afterward. 

Mr.  WHITE  of  California.  It  was  a  pretty  good  republic  then, 
as  the  Senator  will  perceive  if  he  will  read  the  whole  of  the  message 
from  which  he  has  quoted,  and  a  republic  erected  under  circumstances 
widely  different  from  those  attending  the  formation  of  the  Dole  organ 
ization.  Our  minister  recognized  it  not  because  he  had  any  power 
to  do,  but  merely  as  a  suggestion  to  our  Executive,  and  Mr.  Buchan 
an's  recital  is  plainly  and  clearly  in  ratification  of  his  act.  The  min 
ister  had  no  power  to  recognize.  If  the  home  Government  had  not 
seen  fit  to  ratify,  his  act  would  have  been  utterly  nugatory  from  its 
inception.  There  was  no  authority  of  the  sort  vested  in  him.  I  said 
before,  and  repeat  now,  that  when  a  change  of  Government  occurs 
there  is  nothing  to  inhibit  a  minister  making  his  recommendation,  and 
in  so  acting  then  and  there  as  to  protect  the  interests  of  his  country 
men  then  and  there,  he  is  always  taking  the  chance  of  ratification. 
He  acts,  in  diplomatic  phrase,  "  in  the  hope  of  ratification."  I  have 
never  said  anything  else,  and  the  Senator's  argument,  as  I  said  before, 
in  no  manner  detracts  from  what  I  have  uttered.  In  the  French 
instance  the  minister's  conduct  and  anticipations  were  justified  by  the 
facts.  It  was  otherwise  with  Mr.  Stevens. 

I  am  complaining  of  Mr.  Stevens,  not  merely  because  he  assumed 
to  treat  a  new  organization  as  a  government,  but  because  his  conduct, 
taking  it  in  view  of  what  occurred,  was  wholly  without  warrant.  My 
compTaint  is  based  upon  the  proposition  that  he  recognized  that  as  a 
de  facto  government  which  was  no  government  at  all,  and  that  his 
recognition  was  simply  an  approval  of  that  which  he  had  done  himself. 
"  I  am  proud  of  my  work  "  was  the  proper  construction  of  his  message 
of  recognition. 

I  have  further  criticised  him  for  raising  up  our  flag  and  assuming 
that  sovereignty  which  his  superiors  plainly  told  him  subsequently 
he  had  no  right  to  do. 

I  further  repeat  that  the  question  of  the  integrity  of  a  governor, 
of  a  queen  or  a  king,  or  the  enlightened,  virtuous,  or  stable  character 
of  everyone  connected  with  a  recognized  power  or  the  want  of  these 


SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  229 

traits  does  not  alter  the  duty  of  a  minister  to  treat  those  as  friendly 
whom  his  country  declares  to  be  so.  He  can  not  recognize  a  govern 
ment  unless  the  law  warrants  him  in  doing  so.  He  is  not  empowered 
to  select  rulers  for  other  peoples. 

We  are  glad  to  note  the  spread  of  democratic  ideas.  It  is  true, 
as  the  Senator  has  said,  that  we  always  hail  with  satisfaction  the 
establishment  of  a  republic,  and  we  look  with  regret  upon  monarchical 
success,  but  nothing  will  absolve  our  diplomatic  officer  from  doing 
his  duty  as  a  straightforward  and  sincere  man. 

I  know,  and  I  trust  the  Senator  is  aware  of  the  fact  that  I  know, 
that  our  minister  owes  no  fealty  to  a  foreign  potentate.  I  have  never 
so  intimated.  I  understand  this,  but  when  that  minister  enters  into 
the  presence  of  a  foreign  potentate  as  our  envoy,  represented  to  be 
trustworthy,  and  worthy  of  confidence  and  regard,  it  is  his  obligation, 
to  be  decent  and  to  let  conspiracies  and  conspirators  —  whether  right 
or  wrong  —  severely  alone.  If  Mr.  Stevens  seized  a  book  and  threw 
it  at  the  head  of  the  Queen  when  he  first  appeared  before  her,  it  might 
emphasize  the  fact  that  he  believed  as  does  the  Senator  from  Colorado, 
but  it  would  not  be  proper.  In  his  contact  with  a  foreign  court  the 
minister  must  deport  himself  as  a  gentleman,  not  only  in  private  inter 
course,  but  also  in  his  diplomatic  relations,  and  by  that  phrase  I  mean 
not  merely  his  manner  of  address,  but  his  entire  conduct.  This  he 
must  do  out  of  respect  for  his  own  countrymen. 

As  Mr.  Stevens  came  to  Queen  Liliuokalani  with  the  letter  of 
credence  already  mentioned,  directed  to  her  as  the  "  great  and  good 
friend  "  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  as  long  as  he  bore 
that  assurance  of  our  Government's  regard,  declaring  him  to  be 
worthy  of  the  Queen's  confidence,  and  used  it  to  gain  admission  to  her 
presence  and  her  home,  it  was  at  least  his  province  as  an  American, 
not  because  he  owed  fealty  to  her,  but  because  he  owed  fealty  here, 
to  abstain  from  the  commission  of  acts  hostile  to  her  and  her  people. 
He  should  have  acted  toward  her  as  he  would  have  acted  toward  any 
other  monarch,  or  any  other  power  whether  great  or  small,  strong  or 
weak,  both  publicly  and  in  private.  His  character  as  a  minister  should 
have  absorbed  his  personality. 


MARITIME  CANAL  COMPANY  OF  NICARAGUA 


SPEECH 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
Thursday,  January  24,  1895. 

The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  bill  (S.  1481)  to  amend  the  act 
entitled  "  An  act  to  incorporate  the  Maritime  Canal  Company  of  Nicaragua," 
approved  February  20,  1889 — 

Mr.  WHITE  said : 

Mr.  PRESIDENT  :  In  discussing  the  provisions  of  the  pending  bill 
I  shall  not  attempt  to  go  minutely  into  the  details  of  the  measure,  but 
will  assume  that  those  subjects  which  have  been  carefully  considered 
pro  and  con  are  thoroughly  understood  by  the  Senate  and  the  country 
and  need  little,  if  any  elaboration.  Nevertheless,  it  will  be  impossible 
to  avoid  repetition,  perhaps,  and  it  will  be  requisite  to  refer  to  various 
topics  which  have  attracted  the  attention  of  different  Senators  who 
have  spoken. 

In  my  judgment  this  bill  should  receive  our  approval  and  should 
be  enacted.  I  shall  attempt  to  convince  the  Senate  that  we  have 
the  authority  to  act  as  proposed,  and  that  the  various  provisions  of 
the  Constitution  which  pertain  to  the  matter  confer  upon  the  legisla 
tive  department  of  the  Government  the  right  so  to  do.  I  shall  then 
attempt  to  answer  some  of  the  objections  which  have  been  made, 
and  to  correct  some  misconceptions  which  have  misled  certain  Sen 
ators  who  have  heretofore  addressed  us. 

THE   CONSTITUTIONAL   QUESTION. 

I  will  briefly  allude  to  a  few  of  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  which  appear  to  me  to  bear  upon  the 
side  of  the  question,  and  I  will  primarily  direct  the  Senate's  attention 
to  their  consideration. 

Doubts  have  been  expressed  more  than  once  in  this  debate  as  to 
the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  carry  out  the  plan  outlined 
in  the  pending  bill.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  contention  in  the 
earlier  history  of  the  Republic  with  reference  to  an  exceedingly 
strict  construction  of  the  organic  law,  it  is  at  this  date  obvious  that 
all  parties  have  been  voluntarily  placed  in  such  a  position  that  they 
can  not  consistently  advocate  a  narrow  interpretation.  Even  Jeffer 
son  was  supposed  to  have  stretched  the  subject  when  he  carried  out 
his  annexation  project;  but  his  successors  never  deemed  it  essential 
to  procure  any  other  ratification  of  his  acts  than  that  which  followed 
acquiescence. 

I  believe  that  we  have  jurisdiction  to  pass  this  bill  under  the 
commerce  and  common-defense  clauses,  and  because  of  the  conceded 
plenary  authority  of  the  Federal  Government  over  matters  of  inter 
national  concern.  The  distinguished  Senator  from  Indiana  and 
others  have  urged  that  this  is  a  Government  of  enumerated  powers, 

230 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  231 

and  that  unless  something  can  be  pointed  out  in  the  Constitution 
which  gives  the  authority  here  claimed  we  can  not  act.  This  I 
readily  concede;  but  I  also  invoke  another  rule  equally  well  estab 
lished,  namely,  that  the  power  when  delegated  is  complete  in  itself, 
with  no  other  limit  than  that  prescribed.  It  was  so  held  at  an  early 
date  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  decisions  which 
have  ever  since  been  followed. 

In  Gilman  vs.  Philadelphia^  3  Wall.,  731,  it  was  said: 

Within  the  sphere  of  their  authority  both  the  legislative  and  judicial  powers 
of  the  nation  are  supreme.  A  different  doctrine  finds  no  warrant  in  the  Consti 
tution  and  is  abnormal  and  revolutionary. 

The  commerce  clause  has  always  been  very  liberally  interpreted. 
In  Pensacola  Telegraph  Company  vs.  Western  Union  Telegraph 
Company,  96  U.  $.,  9,  we  find  the  doctrine  stated  thus : 

Since  the  case  of  Gibbons  vs.  Ogden  (9  Wheat.,  i)  it  has  never  been 
doubted  that  commercial  intercourse  is  an  element  of  commerce  which  comes 
within  the  regulating  power  of  Congress.  Post-offices  and  post-roads  are  estab 
lished  to  facilitate  the  transmission  of  intelligence.  Both  commerce  and  the 
postal  service  are  placed  within  the  power  of  Congress,  because,  being  national 
in  their  operation,  they  should  be  under  the  protecting  care  of  the  National 
Government.  The  powers  thus  granted  are  not  confined  to  the  instrumentalities 
of  commerce,  or  the  postal  service  known  or  in  use  when  the  Constitution  was 
adopted,  but  they  keep  pace  with  the  progress  of  the  country  and  adapt  them 
selves  to  the  new  developments  of  time  and  circumstances.  They  extend  from 
the  horse  with  its  rider  to  the  stagecoach,  from  the  sailing  vessel  to  the  steam 
boat,  from  the  coach  and  the  steamboat  to  the  railroad,  and  from  the  railroad 
to  the  telegraph,  as  these  new  agencies  are  successively  brought  into  use  to  meet 
the  demands  of  increasing  population  and  wealth.  They  were  intended  for  the 
government  of  the  business  to  which  they  relate,  at  all  times  and  under  all  cir 
cumstances. 

In  Kidd  vs.  Parsons  (128  U.  S.,  20)  Justice  Lamar  says: 

The  buying  and  selling  and  the  transportation  incident  thereto  constitute 
commerce ;  and  the  regulation  of  commerce  in  the  constitutional  sense  embraces 
the  regulation  at  least  of  such  transportation.  The  legal  definition  of  the  term 
as  given  by  this  court  in  County  of  Mobile  vs.  Kimball  (120  U.  S.,  702)  is  as 
follows :  "  Commerce  with  foreign  countries  and  among  the  States,  strictly  con 
sidered,  consists  in  intercourse  and  traffic,  including  in  these  terms  navigation 
and  the  transportation  and  transit  of  persons  and  property  as  well  as  the  pur 
chase,  sale,  and  exchange  of  commodities." 

It  being  conceded  that  Congress  has  the  power  to  improve  rivers 
and  harbors  and  to  make  canals  within  the  United  States  because  the 
commerce  clause  declares  that  Congress  shall  have  power  to  regulate 
commerce  among  the  several  States,  etc.,  does  it  not  follow  that  Con 
gress  is  authorized  to  improve  ways  of  commerce  abroad  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  same  provision  of  the  Constitution  ordains  the 
existence  of  the  right  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign  nations? 
If  we  can  dig  a  canal  in  order  to  more  effectively  regulate  com 
merce  among  the  States,  it  is  not  perceived  why  we  can  not  dig  a 
canal  in  Nicaragua  in  order  to  beneficially  regulate  our  foreign  com 
merce.  If  the  United  States  is  in  reality  a  nation,  and  Chief  Justice 
Marshall  so  emphatically  declared  in  the  Cohens  case;  it  is  not  easy 
to  see  why  the  gentlemen  who  are  upon  the  other  side  of  this  question 
insist  upon  our  impotency  to  act  abroad.  I  do  not  think  that  we  are 
restricted,  cooped  up,  to  the  extent  claimed  by  some  of  my  friends 
upon  this  floor.  I  do  not  believe  in  a  hobbled  nationality,  and  do  not 
think  the  Constitution  conferred  less  than  sovereign  power  upon  the 


232  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

United  States  Government  when  acting  upon  foreign  questions  or 
upon  matters  confided  without  specified  restrictions  to  national 
keeping. 

In  Cherokee  Nation  vs.  Kansas  Railway  Company  (135  U.  S. 
658)  it  is  said: 

The  power  to  construct  or  to  authorize  individuals  or  corporations  to  construct 
national  highways  and  bridges  from  State  to  State  is  essential  to  the  complete 
control  and  regulation  of  interstate  commerce.  Without  authority  in  Congress  to 
establish  and  maintain  such  highways  and  bridges  it  would  be  without  authority 
to  regulate  one  of  the  most  important  adjuncts  of  commerce.  Of  course,  the 
authority  of  Congress  over  the  Territories  of  the  United  States  and  its  power 
to  grant  franchises  exercisable  therein  are,  and  ever  have  been,  undoubted.  But 
the  wider  power  was  very  freely  exercised  and  much  to  the  general  satisfaction 
in  the  creation  of  the  vast  system  of  railroads  connecting  the  East  with  the 
Pacific,  traversing  States  as  well  as  Territories  and  employing  the  agency  of 
State  as  well  as  Federal  corporations. 

In  the  present  instance  Congress  proposes  to  employ  the  "agency 
or  agencies  mentioned  in  the  bill.  If  such  agencies  may  be  employed 
and  such  powers  delegated  under  the  commerce  clause  because  it 
confers  jurisdiction  to  regulate  "  among  the  States,"  why  can  not 
similar  instrumentalities  be  utilized  in  the  present  instance  in  order 
to  "  regulate  foreign  commerce  ?  " 

I  am  aware  that  Senators  have  argued  that  we  must  acquire  the 
territory  through  which  the  canal  runs  before  we  can  build  it;  that 
we  have  no  jurisdiction  to  regulate  foreign  commerce,  except  where 
we  have  the  absolute  sovereignty.  Whence  comes  this  limitation? 
Not  from  the  Constitution.  It  is  not  denied  that  we  may  legally 
appropriate  money  to  remove  a  rock  in  mid-ocean  to  which  there  is 
no  claimant,  and  which  endangers  our  trade,  but  it  is  averred  that 
we  are  not  permitted  to  remove  such  an  obstruction  if  it  belongs 
to  a  foreign  government,  although  that  government  consents,  and,  in 
fact,  invites  us  to  do  so.  This  may  be  good  law,  but  I  will  not 
believe  it  until  the  Supreme  Court  so  declares.  This  restriction  is  a 
stranger  to  the  organic  instrument. 

The  eighteenth  subdivision  of  section  8  of  Article  I  of  the  Con 
stitution  ordains  that — 

The  Congress  shall  have  power  to  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary 
and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing  powers  and  all  other 
powers  vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or 
in  any  department  or  officer  thereof. 

Hence,  I  take  it  that  if  this  bill  be  necessary  and  proper  for 
carrying  into  execution  the  power  to  regulate  commerce  with  foreign 
nations  it  may  be  lawfully  enacted. 

I  can  not  understand  the  line  of  reasoning  which  concludes  that 
"  regulate "  is  of  less  force  when  applied  to  foreign  nations  than 
when  made  applicable  to  the  Indian  tribes  or  the  several  States. 

The  eighteenth  subdivision  of  section  8,  above  quoted,  has  been 
held  to  be  a  direct  authority  for  the  exercise  of  all  necessary,  inci 
dental,  or  implied  power  to  enable  Congress  to  carry  out  the  great 
provisions  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  not  a  limitation  upon  its  powers, 
but  an  enlargement  thereof.  (McCulloch  vs.  Maryland,  4  Wheat., 
421 ;  Anderson  vs.  Dunn,  6  Wheat.,  204;  U.  S.  vs.  Harris,  106  U.  S., 
629;  Tennessee  vs.  Davis,  iocfU.  S.  257.) 

But  we  are  not  even  compelled  to  rely  upon  that  part  of  the 
commerce  clause  which  refers  to  our  right  to  regulate  .foreign  com- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  233 

rnerce.  It  is  undoubtedly  important  that  there  should  be  cheap  and 
short  communication  between  that  portion  of  the  Union  which  is 
upon  the  Pacific  Coast  and  the  Atlantic  Seaboard  of  the  nation.  If 
the  Nicaragua  Canal  is  opened  and  vessels  ply  between  New  York 
and  San  Francisco  carrying  on  domestic  commerce  between  these 
parts  of  the  Republic,  will  it  not  be  commerce  among  the  States  ? 
I  am  aware  that  some  Senators  hold  that  commerce  among  the 
States  can  not  be  carried  on  outside  of  national  lines.  This  I  consider 
a  peculiar  doctrine,  to  say  the  least.  If  a  vessel,  going  from  San 
Francisco  to  Puget  Sound,  shall  pass  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
United  States  before  reaching  her  destination,  I  can  not  think  that 
this  fact  will  affect  the  question.  If  I  send  a  thousand  bags  of  wool 
from  San  Francisco  to  Boston  by  rail,  I  presume  it  will  be  said  that 
this  is  carrying  on  commerce  among  the  States,  and  if  I  send  a  similar 
amount  of  the  same  commodity  by  water  to  the  same  point,  some  of 
my  friends  would  have  me  believe  that  this  is  not  commerce  among 
the  States.  These  distinctions  are,  to  say  the  least,  fine  spun.  They 
find  no  warrant,  I  think,  in  the  Constitution,  and  I  am  assured  that 
no  court  in  this  age  of  progress,  development,  and  necessity  will 
impose  upon  the  country  any  such  strained  and  forced  interpretation. 
In  Gibbons  vs.  Ogden  (9  Wheat.,  189)  Chief  Justice  Marshall 
said : 

The  words  are :  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  regulate  commerce  with 
foreign  nations  and  among  the  several  States  and  with  the  Indian  tribes."  The 
subject  to  be  regulated  is  commerce;  and  our  Constitution  being,  as  was  aptly 
said  at  the  bar,  one  of  enumeration,  and  not  of  definition,  to  ascertain  the  extent 
of  the  power,  it  becomes  necessary  to  settle  the  meaning  of  the  word.  The  coun 
sel  for  the  appellee  would  limit  it  to  traffic,  to  buying  and  selling,  or  the  inter 
change  of  commodities,  and  do  not  admit  that  it  comprehends  navigation.  This 
would  restrict  a  general  term,  applicable  to  many  objects,  to  one  of  its  significa 
tions.  Commerce  undoubtedly  is  traffic,  but  it  is  something  more;  it  is  inter 
course.  It  describes  the  commercial  intercourse  between  nations  and  parts  of 
nations  in  all  its  branches,  and  is  regulated  by  prescribing  rules  for  carrying  on 
that  intercourse. 

In  regulating  commerce  with  foreign  nations  the  power  of  Congress  does 
not  stop  at  the  jurisdictional  lines  of  the  several  States.  It  would  be  a  very  use 
less  power  if  it  could  not  pass  those  lines.  The  commerce  of  the  United  States 
with  foreign  nations  is  that  of  the  whole  United  States.  (Id.,  195.) 

If,  as  has  always  been  understood,  the  sovereignty  of  Congress,  though  lim 
ited  to  specified  objects,  is  plenary  as  to  those  objects,  the  power  over  commerce 
with  foreign  nations,  and  among  the  several  States,  is  vested  in  Congress  as 
absolutely  as  it  would  be  in  a  single  government,  having  in  its  constitution  the 
same  restrictions  on  the  exercise  of  the  power  as  are  found  in  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  The  wisdom  and  the  discretion  of  Congress,  their  identity 
with  the  people,  and  the  influence  which  their  constituents  possess  at  elections, 
are,  in  this,  as  in  many  other  instances,  as  that,  for  example,  of  declaring  war, 
the  sole  restraints  on  which  they  have  relied  to  secure  them  from  its  abuse. 
They  are  the  restraints  on  which  the  people  must  often  rely  solely,  in  all  repre 
sentative  governments.  (Id.,  197.) 

We  admit,  as  all  must  admit,  that  the  powers  of  the  Government  are  lim 
ited,  and  that  its  limits  are  not  to  be  transcended.  But  we  think  the  sound  con 
struction  of  the  Constitution  must  allow  to  the  National  Legislature  that  dis 
cretion,  with  respect  to  the  means  by  which  the  powers  it  confers  are  to  be 
carried  into  execution,  which  will  enable  that  body  to  perform  the  high  duties 
assigned  to  it  in  the  manner  most  beneficial  to  the  people.  Let  the  end  be  legili 
mate,  let  it  be  within  the  scope  of  the  Constitution  and  all  means  which  are 
appropriate,  which  are  plainly  adapted  to  that  end,  which  are  not  prohibited,  but 
consistent  with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  are  constitutional.  (Mc- 
Culloch  vs.  Maryland,  4  Wheat.,  421.) 

As  illustrative  of  the  correctness  of  this  construction,   Marshall 
16 


234  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

pointed  out  the  fact  that  almost  the  whole  penal  code  of  the  United 
States  is  valid,  not  because  of  direct  authority,  although  the  Con 
stitution  does  give  authority  expressly  in  some  cases,  such  as  counter 
feiting,  piracies,  and  offenses  against  the  laws  of  nations,  etc.  So, 
also,  from  the  power  to  establish  post-offices  and  post-roads  has  been 
inferred  the  power  of  carrying  the  mail  and  punishing  robbery  of 
mails,  etc. 

Another  most  important  rule  is  that — 

It  is  not  indispensable  to  the  existence  of  any  power  claimed  for  the  Fed 
eral  Government  that  it  can  be  *  *  *  clearly  and  directly  traceable  to  some 
one  of  the  specified  powers.  Its  existence  may  be  deduced  fairly  from  more 
than  one  of  the  substantive  powers,  expressly  defined,  or  from  them  all  com 
bined.  It  is  allowable  to  group  together  any  number  of  them  and  infer  from 
them  all  that  the  power  claimed  has  been  conferred.  (Legal  Tender  Cases,  12 
Wall.,  534;  'see  also  Julliard  vs.  Greenman,  no  U.  S-,  449-) 

Thus  in  the  present  instance  it  is  enough,  if  taking  the  com 
merce  clause,  the  authority  to  provide  for  the  common  defense  and 
the  other  expressed  and  implied  powers  conferred,  the  jurisdiction 
can  be  found. 

It  is  scarcely  worth  while  at  this  time  to  attack  those  decisions. 
The  people  of  the  United  States,  directly  cognizant  of  the  view  taken 
by  their  highest  appellate  tribunal,  have  for  years  refrained  from 
any  organic  amendment  touching  this  subject,  and  no  serious  attempt 
has  been  made  to  defeat  this  construction  by  constitutional  pro 
hibition.  This  is,  therefore,  the  accepted  view,  whatever  individuals 
may  think  about  it,  and  it  is  not  likely  that  it  will  ever  be  seriously 
reassailed. 

It  seems  to  me  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  power  of  Con 
gress  to  build  this  canal,  because  of  its  effect  upon  international 
relations.  There  are  a  number  of  decisions  unholding  the  right  to. 
annex  territory  and  expel  aliens,  which  are  grounded  upon  the  theory 
of  the  unlimited  power  of  Congress  with  reference  to  international 
matters.  (Chinese  Exclusion  Cases,  130  U.  S.  604;  Jones  vs.  U.  S., 
137  U.  S.,  212;  Nishimura  Ekiu  vs.  U.  S.,  142  U.  S.,  659;  Fong 
Yue  Ting  vs.  U.  S.,  149  U.  S.,  705.) 

In  the  Chinese  exclusion  case  (130  U.  S.,  604)  Justice  Field 
quoted  with  approval  the  language  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Cohens 
vs.  Virginia  (6  Wheat.,  413),  as  follows: 

That  the  United  States  form,  for  many  and  for  most  important  purposes,  a 
single  nation,  has  not  yet  been  denied.  In  war  we  are  one  people.  In  making 
peace  we  are  one  people.  In  all  commercial  regulations  we  are  one  and  the 
same  people.  In  many  other  .respects  the  American  people  are  one,  and  the 
Government,  which  is  alone  capable  of  controlling  and  managing  their  inter 
ests  in  all  these  respects,  is  the  Government  of  the  Union.  It  is  their  Govern 
ment,  and  in  that  character  they  have  no  other.  America  has  chosen  to  be,  in 
many  respects  and  to  many  purposes,  a  nation ;  and  for  all  these  purposes  her 
government  is  complete;  to  all  these  objects  it  is  competent.  The  people  have 
declared  that  in  the  exercise  of  all  powers  given  for  these  objects  it  is  supreme. 

In  speaking  of  the  necessity  for  practically  unlimited  power  in 
matters  affecting  the  public  peace,  Mr.  Madison  says,  in  the  forty- 
first  number  of  the  Federalist,  Hamilton's  edition : 

With  what  color  of  propriety  could  the  force  necessary  for  defense  be  lim 
ited  by  those  who  can  not  limit  the  force  of  offense?  If  a  Federal  Constitution 
could  chain  the  ambition  or  set  bounds  to  the  exertions  of  all  other  nations, 
then  indeed  might  it  prudently  chain  the  discretion  of  its  own  Government  and 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  235 

set  bounds  to  the  exertions  for  its  own  safety.  How  could  a  readiness  for  war 
in  time  of  peace  be  safely  prohibited,  unless  we  could  prohibit,  in  like  manner, 
the  preparations  and  establishments  of  every  hostile  nation ;  the  means  of  'secur 
ity  can  only  be  regulated  by  the  means  and  danger  of  attack.  They  will,  in  fact, 
be  ever  determined  by  these  rules,  and  by  no  others.  It  is  in  vain  to  oppose 
constitutional  barriers  to  the  impulse  of  self  preservation.  It  is  worse  than  in 
vain ;  because  it  plants  in  the  Constitution  itself  necessary  usurpations  of  power, 
every  precedent  of  which  is  a  germ  of  unnecessary"  and  multiplied  repetitions. 

I  think  it  is  obvious  from  the  decisions  above  mentioned,  as 
well  as  from  the  inherent  demands  of  the  case,  that  full  rights  of 
sovereignty  in  foreign  relations  are  necessarily  implied  from  the  pro 
visions  of  the  Constitution  itself.  If  I  believe,  as  I  do  believe,  that 
the  construction  of  this  canal  will  regulate  our  foreign  commerce, 
also  commerce  among  the  States,  and  if  I  believe,  as  I  do  believe, 
that  for  the  security  and  safety  of  the  Republic  it  is  wise  that  this 
canal  should  be  built,  and  that  its  construction  will  tend  to  benefit  us 
in  our  international  relations,  I  am  then  authorized  to  advocate  the 
measure,  as  far  as  the  Constitution  is  concerned.  I  do  not  care  to 
rest  my  support  upon  the  construction  placed  by  some  upon  the 
general-welfare  clause.  I  think  that  certain  opinions  here  uttered 
regarding  that  provision  are  rather  broader  than  mine.  But  I  feel 
confident  that  this  bill,  if  it  becomes  a  law,  will  stand  the  judicial  test. 
I  know  that  it  is  usual  to  declare  that  any  important  measure  that 
does  not  accord  with  the  particular  constitution  of  the  individual 
criticising  it  is  violative  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
I  might  add  that  Congress  has  the  power,  as  I  have  said,  to  bring 
about  the  construction  of  this  canal  by  whatever  means  it  may  deem 
to  be  best.  Having  the  authority  to  build  it,  it  may  delegate  the  same 
or  may  assist  to  execute  the  work.  The  extent  and  mode  of  the 
control  to  be  asserted  and  maintained  are  not  matters  of  jurisdiction, 
but  rest  in  the  sound  and  indisputable  discretion  of  the  lawmaking 
power. 

It  is  perhaps  well  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  power  to 
make  internal  improvements,  such  as  the  old  Cumberland  road,  mod 
ern  railroads,  canals,  etc.,  rests  upon  the  commerce  clause  of  the 
Constitution.  (Pac.  R.  Co.,  Removal  Cases,  115  U.  S.,  18;  Califor 
nia  vs.  Pac.  R.  Co.,  127  U.  S.,  39;  Monongahela  N.  Co.  vs.  U.  S.f 
148  U.  S.  335-) 

I  think  it  plain  that  Congress  has  authority  in  times  of  peace, 
not  only  to  prepare  for  war,  but  to  so  act  as  to  prevent  war.  If  the 
Nicaragua  Canal,  built  as  we  propose  to  build  it,  will  give  us  addi 
tional  security,  and  of  this  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  we 
have  power  to  use  such  instrumentalities  as  we  think  are  desirable. 
I  can  not  bring  myself  to  think  that  there  is  anything  in  the  claim 
that  our  international  rights  are  not  to  be  invoked  for  the  reason  that 
we  are  the  stockholders  in  this  enterprise.  The  proposition  made  in 
the  bill  virtually  brings  us  into  relationship  with  other  nations.  One 
objection  sometimes  urged  is  that  we  will  become  involved  in  foreign 
entanglements ;  that  we  will  have  trouble  with  Great  Britain,  or  that 
there  will  be  disputes  between  ourselves,  Nicaragua,  and  Costa  Rica; 
and  still  we  are  informed  that  the  taking  of  stock  domesticates  the 
entire  affair. 

Mr.  President,  a  distinguished  Senator  who  spoke  upon  this 
subject  stated  that  the  Constitution,  so  far  as  it  seeks  to  regulate 
commerce  among  the  States,  can  not  apply,  because  in  passing  from 


236  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

the  Atlantic  seaboard  to  the  Pacific  Coast  or  from  the  Pacific  Coast 
to  the  Atlantic  seaboard,  a  vessel  is  for  the  major  part  of  the  voyage 
without  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  and  within  that  of 
foreign  governments.  The  same  Senator  stated  that  for  the  same 
reason  Congress  may  not,  even  with  the  consent  of  the  intervening 
territorial  proprietor,  construct  a  railroad  from  the  United  States  to 
Alaska;  that  because  the  British  possessions  separate  these  parts 
of  the  United  States  there  can  not  as  to  such  removed  jurisdictions  be 
4<  commerce  among-  the  States." 

Mr.  President,  if  this  be  true,  then,  if  Alaska  shall  ever  be 
admitted  into  the  Union,  she  will  not  have  the  benefit  of  the  com 
merce  clause  regarding  the  regulation  of  commerce  among  the  States. 

If  there  must  be  contiguity  of  the  territory  of  States,  if  there 
must  be  adjacent  States  in  order  to  have  commerce  "  among  the 
States,"  clearly  as  to  Alaska,  separated  as  it  is,  there  never  could  be 
such  commerce,  and  hence  that  portion  of  the  United  States,  were 
it  a  State,  would  have  no  advantage  whatever  from  this  provision  of 
the  organic  instrument. 

Again,  in  order  to  bring  a  State  formed  from  Alaska  within  the 
clause  under  immediate  consideration,  we  would  only  find  it  neces 
sary  to  purchase  a  strip  a  few  inches  in  width,  running  from  the 
United  States  to  Alaska,  and  erect  upon  it  a  telegraph  line,  in  order 
to  at  once  alter  the  situation  and  bring  Alaska  within  the  commerce 
features  of  our  Constitution. 

I  do  not  propose  to  say  that  any  argument  is  wholly  unfounded. 
I  do  not  undertake  to  criticise  any  Senator  for  what  he  may  have 
stated  as  mere  opinion,  but  I  fail  to  see  how  it  can  be  logically  main 
tained  that  any  such  doctrine  as  that  above  stated  was  ever  entertained, 
or  laid  down,  or  considered,  or  even  thought  of  by  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution. 

I  think  that  if  the  State  of  California,  the  State  of  Oregon,  and 
the  State  of  Washington  see  fit  to  send  their  goods  and  wares  to 
other  portions  of  the  United  States  it  is  no  less  commerce  "  among 
the  States "  because  a  waterway  instead  of  a  railway  is  utilized. 
This  is  an  important  question,  for  great  is  the  commerce  which 
traverses  the  ocean  between  the  eastern  and  western  coasts  of  our 
country. 

It  will  be  unfortunate  indeed  if  it  shall  appear  to  this  Govern 
ment  that  there  is  no  authority  to  bring  about  the  construction  of 
this  canal,  which  every  Senator  admits  is  desirable  and  which  all 
concede  will  promote  our  interests.  While  there  have  been  inci 
dental  expressions  of  doubt  as  to  the  magnitude  of  the  benefit  to  be 
conferred,  I  take  it  that  the  consensus  of  opinion  is  that  if  the  canal 
can  be  built  it  should  be  built.  It  would  seem,  in  view  of  the 
remarks  which  have  been  made  here  in  attempted  or  actual  elucida 
tion  of  this  subject,  that  there  can  be  no  substantial  dispute  as  to 
this  conclusion.  The  great  saving  in  transportation  as  shown  by 
the  often-cited  table  of  distances  is  itself  most  suggestive  as  a  com 
mercial  argument. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


237 


Table  showing  distances  in  miles  between  commercial  ports  of  the  world  and 
distances  saved  by  the  Nicaragua  Canal. 


From  — 

Via 
Cape 
Horn. 

Via  Cape 
of  Good 
Hope. 

Via 
Nicara 
gua 
Canal. 

Distance 
saved 

New  York  to— 
San  Francisco 

Miles. 
14,840 
17,921 
16,105 

Miles. 

Miles. 
4,946 
8,026 
6,209 
3,122 
3,682 
11,038 
9,363 
10,000 
8,680 
6,388 
3,701 
3,053 
4,688 

4,047 
2,409 
2,969 
2,340 
2,988 
3,987 

7,694 

5,870 
6,430 
12,748 
11,349 
13,786 
12,111 
5,890 
6,449 
7,436 
9,136 
13,520 
13,887 

6,880 
6,320 
5,530 
5,515 

Miles. 
9,894 
9,895 
9,896 
9,949 
9,949 
4,163 
6,827 
3,290 
3,870 
7,842 
6,988 
8,418 
5,062 

11,005 
10,874 
10,874 
9,343 
7,913 
5,975 

6,996 
7,051 
7,051 
392 
1,051 
1,265 
3,929 
5,431 
4,090 
2,144 
4,944 
431 
1,314 

7,051 
7,051 
5,900 
5,605 

Bering  Strait 

Sitka                                           

Acapulco                                   ... 

13,071 
13,631 
18,180 
17,679 
13,502 
12,550 
14,230 
10,689 

Mfizatlan             .  .       .    .            

Hongkong        

15,201 
16,190 
13,290 
14,125 

Yokohama    

Melbourne  

New  Zealand  

Sandwich  Islands 

Callao 

Guay  aci  uil 

11,471 
9,750 

New  Orleans  to  — 

15,052 

13,283 

Mazatl&n 

13,843 

Guayaquil  

11,683 

Callao 

10,901 

Valparaiso  

9,962 

Liverpool  to  — 

14,690 

12,921 

Mazatlan  .           

13,481 
13,352 
12,400 
18,030 
17,529 
11,321 

Melbourne  

13,140 
13,975 
15,051 
16,040 

New  Zealand 

Hongkong 

Yokohama 

Guayaquil  

Callao                 ....         

10,539 

9,600 

Sandwich  Islands  

14,080 

Spain  to  Manila  

16,900 
17,750 

13,931 

13,951 
15,201 

Hamburg  to  — 
Mazatlan 

Acapulco                             • 

13,371 
11,430 
11,120 

Fonseca                                   

Punta  Arenas  Costa  Rica  

To  eastern 

SrnaCgeu°af 
Canal. 

To  western 
entrance  of 
Nicaragua 
Canal. 

Miles. 
New  York                                           2  021     Sa 

n  Franci 
ilparaiso 

,1  1  ao  .  .  . 

SCO  

Miles. 
2,776 
2,518 
1,531 
3,219 
3,428 

Liverpool  4,769     V< 

Hamburg                                            5  219     Ca 

Amsterdam                                         4,994     Portland  

Havre                                .                       4,874     Victoria  

Cadiz  4,220 

New  Orleans  1,308 

NOTE. — The  distances  are  measured  by  customary  routes  most  convenient 
for  sailing  ehips  and  slow  freight  steamers. 


238 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 


As  tending  to  show  the  business  which  awaits  the  construction 
of  this  canal,  I  find  in  the  report  before  the  Senate  a  partial  state 
ment  of  transcontinental  railroad  traffic  in  1890  from  California, 
where  it  is  said  that  that  State  exported  from  the  port  of  San  Fran 
cisco  148,446,150  pounds  of  canned  and  dried  fruits,  including  raisins, 
1,623,867  cases  of  canned  salmon,  4,500,000  gallons  of  wines  and 
brandy,  5,734,120  pounds  of  hops,  and  22,662,000  pounds  of  wool, 
fully  90  per  cent,  of  which  was  transported  by  rail  across  the  con 
tinent.  Portland,  Seattle,  Tacoma  and  other  cities  were  also  large 
exporters  of  like  commodities.  Quantities  of  shingles  were  shipped 
from  Puget  Sound,  and  all  the  places  named  were  large  importers 
of  provisions  by  railroad.  At  a  moderate  estimate  this  business 
amounted  to  250,000  tons ;  total  6,812,340  tons.  The  total  referred 
to  includes  the  vast  freight  enumerated  on  page  30  of  the  report  and 
described  as  coming  from  the  various  sources  therein  set  out. 

The  California  production  in  1894,  as  far  as  gathered,  indicates 
better  business  than  that  estimated  by  the  promoters  of  the  canal. 

The  following  is  a  partial  statement  of  the  same: 


Article. 

Tons. 

Per  Ton. 

Freight 
charges. 

Green  fruits 

85  000 

$20  00 

$1,700  000 

Dried  fruits  . 

45  000 

20  00 

900,000 

Raisins      ...           .                   .                    .  . 

41  000 

20  00 

820,000 

Canned  goods  

41  000 

20.00 

820,000 

Ao'gregatingf.  .  . 

212  000 

4,240,000 

We  can  assume  that  the  crop  of  the  current  year  will  be  the 
same,  and  it  surely  will  not  be  less,  and  we  will  have  in  addition, 
as  now  estimated,  about  2,000,000  boxes  of  oranges,  which  will  pay 
freight  at  the  prevailing  rates  to  the  extent  of  about  $1,100,000. 

The  foregoing  figures  do  not  include  over  800,000  gallons  of 
brandy  shipped  in  1894,  more  than  one-half  of  which  went  by  rail ; 
nor  does  it  touch  the  great  wheat  crop  of  California,  which  will 
furnish  for  the  coming  year  over  20,000,000  bushels  for  exportation ; 
nor  does  it  include  about  25,000,000  pounds  of  wool,  quicksilver, 
barley,  oats,  flour,  hops,  and  various  products  of  great  value  and 
quantity  not  enumerated.  Besides  there  are  other  industries,  such  as 
dairying,  but  imperfectly  developed,  and  which  will  have  a  great 
future  if  transportation  be  cheapened.  But  it  is  certain  that  our 
fruit  growers  will  save  not  less  than  $2,000,000  per  year  if  the  canal 
is  built,  and  production  will  be  stimulated  to  such  an  extent  that  the 
railroad  companies  can  afford  to  carry  our  products  at  one-half  the 
present  rates.  If  not,  the  more  reasonable  route  will  always  be 
adopted.  The  producer  will  in  most  cases  be  able  to  avail  himself 
of  the  advantages  of  the  canal. 

There  are  probably  perishable  articles  —  certain  fruits,  which 
must  be  sent  to  market  rapidly,  and  concerning  which  it  is  likely 
the  railroad  will  always  be  preferred.  Californians  have  been  able 
to  send  with  some  success  green  fruits  to  New  York  by  rail  and 
thence  to  London  by  steamer,  and  I  see  no  difficulty  in  shipping  even 
green  fruits,  with  few  exceptions,  through  the  canal  to  the  New 
York  market.  Ordinarily  three  weeks  are  consumed  in  transporting 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  239 

freight  by  rail  from  Pacific  points  to  New  York.  Chicago  will  con 
tinue  to  be  supplied  by  rail,  save  where  enormous  charges  may  lead 
to  water  communication  up  the  Mississippi  River  and  through  the 
canal  which  that  great  city  is  now  constructing. 

The  wheat  grower  now  finds  great  difficulty  in  competing  with 
the  Argentine,  not  only,  as  is  supposed  by  many,  because  of  the 
cheapness  of  labor  there,  but  also  because  of  the  prolonged  voyage 
necessary  to  be  taken  from  San  Francisco  around  Cape  Horn.  This 
will  be  partially  avoided  and  we  will  be  better  able  to  compete  with 
that  country  when  our  vessels  adopt  the  Nicaragua  short  cut.  Cali 
fornia  will  save  $2  per  ton  upon  all  her  exported  wheat.  These  bene 
fits  to  which  I  have  referred  are  not  merely  local.  They  will  be  felt 
throughout  the  country,  especially  along  the  seaboard ;  and  although 
to  a  less  extent,  will  nevertheless  be  obvious  throughout  the  interior. 
Our  products  will  be  sold  in  Eastern  markets  and  everyone  inter 
ested  in  such  trade  or  in  the  consumption  of  the  goods  will  be  a 
beneficiary  under  the  bill. 

You  will  understand  the  extravagant  freight  charges  to  which 
the  people  of  California  are  subject  when  I  tell  you  that  an  8-acre 
orange  crop  of  a  personal  friend  in  Los  Angeles  County  contributed 
$648  per  acre  to  transportation  companies,  leaving  nothing  for  the 
producer,  and  that  this  is  not  an  exceptional  case  will  be  manifest 
when  I  say  that  many  hundred  acres  of  oranges  in  the  same  vicinity 
yielded  not  a  cent  to  their  proprietors  but  furnished  some  $240  per 
acre  toward  railroad  charges. 

It  is  folly  to  maintain  that  an  instrumentality  which  will  open 
improved  communication  from  seaboard  to  seaboard,  which  will 
promote  and  foster  trade  between  the  States,  which  will  facilitate 
foreign  and  domestic  business  intercourse,  which  will  allow  the 
producer  to  fairly  realize,  and  which  will  permit  the  consumer  to 
purchase  at  a  more  reasonable  figure  is  not  commerce.  To  say  that 
this  is  not  "  commerce  among  the  States  "  simply  because  of  pre 
viously  existing  physical  impediments  is,  it  seems  to  me,  to  advance 
a  most  wonderful  doctrine. 

During  the  tariff  debate  a  Senator  remarked  that  there  was 
danger  that  the  Argentine  Confederation  would  ultimately  take  the 
New  York  wheat  and  corn  market,  that  it  would  be  possible  to  ship 
barley  and  corn  from  that  portion  of  the  world  to  New  York  in  com 
petition  with  California  and  the  West.  Is  it  not  obviously  in  the 
interest  of  New  York  and  of.  the  millions  partially  dependent  upon 
her  that  the  wheat  and  other  products  of  the  Pacific  should  be  placed 
within  easier  reach?  Let  us  not  forget  that  it  is  farther  from  San 
Francisco  via  Cape  Horn  to  New  York  than  it  is  from  the  former 
city  to  Liverpool.  Do  we  reflect  that  South  America,  the  mighty 
barrier  interposed  between  us  and  our  commercial  realizations,  may 
be  entirely  ignored ;  that  nature  has  placed  but  a  mere  neck  of  land  as 
an  obstacle  in  our  path,  challenging  our  genius  and  enterprise,  and 
has  tendered  rewards  for  our  successful  labor  worthy  of  a  civilized 
age?  Are  we  to  stand  supinely  by  inertly  comtemplating  a  great 
opportunity,  or  shall  we  engage  in  disputation  concerning  means  and 
methods  when  we  should  know  that  we  enjoy  not  merely  the  power 
to  act  but  that  the  differences  between  the  projects  recommended  are 
of  immaterial  degree? 

Let  it  be  granted  that  some  of  the  promoters  of  this  enterprise 


240  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

may  realize  more  money  from  it  than  is  reasonable.  Assume  this 
to  be  true.  Even  then  I  am  not  ready  to  desist.  The  amount  to 
be  paid  is  not  glaringly  immoderate.  I  will  not  plunge  into  financial 
darkness,  nor  will  I,  on  the  other  hand,  pause  in  executing  an  under 
taking  so  vitally  beneficial  to  the  entire  Republic  and  to  civilization 
because,  forsooth,  an  individual  may  make  two  pennies  where  in 
fairness  he  is  entitled  to  but  one. 

Mr.  President,  I  find  no  difficulty,  as  I  have  heretofore  said,  as 
to  our  power.  While  I  might  and  do  assert  that  I  would  prefer  to 
find  our  Government  in  a  position  to  construct  the  canal  and  to  own 
it  absolutely  and  wholly,  yet  I  can  not  hope  to  impress  my  views 
upon  all  those  who  are  vitally  interested  in  the  project  and  whose 
acquiescence  is  a  sine  qua  non  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  enter 
prise.  When  I  find  that  this  Government  controls  70  per  cent.  —  is 
to  have  in  its  actual  possession  and  control  70  per  cent,  of  the  stock 
of  the  enterprise  —  and  when  I  find  that  we  have  the  right  to  appoint 
the  directors  mentioned,  to  select  them  from  our  own  countrymen, 
if  the  bill  is  to  be  effective,  I  feel  warranted  in  going  forward.  If 
our  directors  are  faithful  we  can  not  be  defrauded.  We  must  confide 
in  some  one.  We  can  not  expect  to  devise  any  scheme  involving 
the  expenditure  of  money  which  will  not  force  us  to  trust  to  the 
honesty  or  integrity  of  men.  Millions  of  dollars  of  public  money 
pass  through  the  hands  of  American  citizens  and  others  in  the 
execution  of  governmental  trusts.  Sometimes  there  is  a  loss.  Dis 
honest  men  now  and  then  appropriate  to  their  own  use  that  which 
ought  to  be  devoted  to  public  purposes  ;  but  we  do  not  cease  carrying 
on  our  Government  for  that  reason;  we  do  not  desist  from  river 
and  harbor  improvements  because  a  contractor  may  get  the  better 
of  the  agreement  occasionally. 

Mr.  VEST.     May  I  ask  the  Senator  from  California  a  question? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  VEST.  How  does  the  Senator  dispose  of  that  provision  in 
the  concession  from  Nicaragua  which  requires  that  one-half  of  the 
directors  of  the  Maritime  Canal  Company  should  be  projectors  and 
retain  their  charter  as  such? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  intended  to  refer  to  that  later  on,  but  I  have 
no  objection  to  doing  so  now.  Does  the  Senator  refer  to  the  following 
provision  of  the  concession  — 

Mr.  VEST.     There  is  but  one  that  refers  to  that  question. 

Mr.  WHITE.     I  will  find  it  in  one  moment. 

Mr.  VEST.  That  provision  is  —  I  do  not  think  I  can  misquote 
it  - 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  will  get  it  in  a  moment  and  read  it  so  that  there 
will  be  no  dispute  what  it  is.  It  is  in  the  Costa  Rica  concession. 

Mr.  VEST.     Nicaragua. 

Mr.  WHITE.     The  Nicaragua  concession  is  as  follows,  on  page 


ARTICLE  VIII. 

The  present  concession  is  transferable  only  to  such  company  of  execution 
as  shall  be  organized  by  the  Nicaragua  Canal  Association,  and  in  no  case  to 
Governments  or  to  foreign  public  powers.  Nor  shall  the  company  cede  to  any 
foreign  Government  any  part  of  the  lands  granted  to  it  by  this  contract;  but  it 
may  make  transfers  to  private  parties  under  the  same  restriction. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  241 

The  Republic  of  Nicaragua  can  not  transfer  its  rights  or  shares  by  selling 
them  to  any  Government. 

That  is  not  the  provision. 

Mr.  VEST.     No;  that  is  not  it.     It  is  about  the  directory. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  understand  that  to  which  the  Senator  refers. 
The  Costa  Rica  concession  is  worded  thus:  I  read  from  the  Report, 
page  165: 

ARTICLE  IX. 

The  company  shall  be  organized  in  the  manner  and  under  the  conditions 
generally  adopted  for  such  companies.  Its  principal  office  shall  be  either  in  the 
city  of  New  York  or  such  place  as  may  be  deemed  convenient. 

Its  first  board  of  directors  shall  be  composed  of  persons,  one-half  at  least 
of  whom  shall  be  chosen  from  those  members  of  the  Nicaragua  Canal  Associa 
tion  who  were  promoters  of  the  enterprise. 

Is  that  the  provision  to  which  the  Senator  alludes? 

Mr.  VEST.     That  is  a  part  of  it. 

Mr.  WHITE.     That  is  all  of  the  article. 

Mr.  VEST.     It  is  in  the  Nicaragua  concession. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  What  is  the  number  of  the  article  the  Senator 
from  California  has  just  read? 

Mr.  WHITE.  It  is  article  9,  page  165,  of  the  Costa  Rica  con 
cession. 

Mr.  FRYE.     That  is  merely  a  provision  for  the  first  board. 

Mr.  WHITE.  That  is  the  first  board.  I  was  about  to  call 
attention  to  that  distinction.  This  may  be  the  provision  to  which 
the  Senator  from  Missouri  alludes.  Article  XI  of  the  Nicaragua 
concession  I  read: 

ARTICLE  XL 

The  Government  of  Nicaragua  in  its  character  of  shareholder  in  the  com 
pany  of  execution,  as  hereinafter  provided,  shall  have  the  perpetual  right  of 
naming  one  director,  who  shall  be  an. integral  part  of  the  board  of  directors  of 
the  company,  with  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and  advantages  conferred  upon  them 
by  the  statutes  of  the  company,  and  the  laws  of  the  country  under  which  it  shall 
organize. 

The  Government  shall  also  have  the  right  in  its  aforesaid  capacity  of  share 
holder  to  take  part  in  such  elections  as  the  company  may  hold. 

But  more  likely  the  following  is  the  article  to  which  the  Senator 
has  reference: 

ARTICLE  X. 

The  company  shall  be  organized  in  the  manner  and  under  the  conditions 
generally  adopted  for  such  companies.  Its  principal  office  shall  be  in  New 
York,  or  where  it  may  deem  most  convenient,  and  it  may  have  branch  offices 
in  the  different  countries  of  Europe  and  America,  where  it  may  consider  it 
expedient. 

Its  name  shall  be  the  "  Maritime  Canal  Company  of  Nicaragua,"  and  its 
board  of  directors  shall  be  composed  of  persons,  one-half  at  least,  of  them  shall 
be  chosen  from  the  promoters  who  may  yet  preserve  their  quality  as  such. 

Mr.  VEST.  I  call  the  Senator's  attention  to  the  fact  that  there 
is  nothing  like  a  limitation  to  the  first  board  of  directors  in  that 
article.  It  is  a  perpetual  limitation,  and  until  Nicaragua  changes  that 
concession  one-half  of  this  board  of  directors  must  always  be  projec 
tors.  The  Senator  has  not  read  the  whole  of  that  provision  because  — 

Mr.  WHITE.     I  have  read  every  word  of  it. 


242  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  VEST.  One  provision  there  says  essentially  that  they  must 
retain  their  character  as  such. 

Mr.  WHITE.  "  Who  may  yet  preserve  their  quality  as  such." 
If  they  do  not  preserve  their  quality,  of  course  it  does  not  apply. 

Mr.  VEST.     But  they  must  be  projectors. 

Mr.  WHITE.  "  Promoters  who  may  yet  preserve  their  quality 
as  such." 

Mr.  VEST.     Yes. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Now,  to  begin  with,  I  affirm  that  that  provision 
is  manifestly  placed  in  that  contract  for  the  benefit  of  the  promoters 
themselves.  It  is  not  a  stipulation  vital  to  the  grant.  It  was  not  put 
in  there  as  a  matter  in  which  Nicaragua  itself  had  any  particular 
interest,  but  it  was  put  in  for  the  benefit  of  the  promoters  themselves, 
and  may  be  waived  by  them. 

Mr.  VEST.     It  is  there. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Certainly.  Now,  as  showing  that  the  Republic 
of  Costa  Rica  regarded  some  of  the  provisions  of  this  concession  as 
vital  and  some  otherwise,  I  refer  to  Article  XLVII  of  the  Costa  Rica 
concession  to  the  Nicaragua  Canal  Company,  as  follows : 

The  present  concession  shall  be  forfeited : 

First.     Through   the   failure   on   the  part   of  the   company  to   comply  with 
any  one  of  the  conditions  contained  in  Articles  VII,  XLII,  and  XLIII. 

Neither  one  of  which  includes  the  directors'  qualifications. 

Second.     If  the  service  of  the  canal,  after  it  is  completed,  is  interrupted  for 
six  months,  unless  in  case  of  unforeseen  accidents  or  main  force,  etc. 

Therefore,  when  this  contract  was  made  the  Government  making 
it  specified  in  the  concession  that  which  should;  be  considered  adequate 
to  operate  as  a  forfeiture.  This  is  an  express  limitation. 

Mr.  VEST.     Will  my  friend  permit  me? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  VEST.  I  have  said  nothing  about  forfeiture.  That  is 
another  question.  But  I  put  this  question  to  the  Senator  from  Cali 
fornia:  Is  anybody  eligible  to  be  a  director,  when  it  comes  to  making 
this  directory,  as  to  one-half  of  it,  who  is  not  a  projector  and  who  does 
not  retain  his  character  as  such,  leaving  out  the  legal  effect  as  to  what 
would  be  a  forfeiture  under  that  concession  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Unquestionably;  I  think  so. 

Mr.  VEST.  Is  it  not  absolutely  certain  that  under  that  provision 
one-half  of  this  directory  shall  be  projectors? 

Mr.  WHITE.  No,  sir ;  I  do  not  consider  it  essential  at  all.  The 
very  language  of  the  article  to  which  the  Senator  refers  states  that 
"  one-half  at  least  shall  be  chosen  from  the  promoters,  who  may  yet 
preserve  their  quality  as  such." 

Mr.  VEST.     What  is  meant  by  preserving  their  quality? 

Mr.  WHITE.  If  they  do  not  preserve  it,  if  none  of  the  pro 
moters  are  there,  how  are  the  directors  to  be  obtained?  Will  the 
Senator  contend  that  if  all  die  this  enterprise  will  end,  though  there 
is  nothing  in  the  concession  that  indicates  any  intent  to  terminate  it 
upon  the  ignoring  of  that  provision,  which  is  plainly  a  proviso  in  the 
interest  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  parties  who  receive  the  concession? 
It  is  not  a  matter  of  concerning  which  these  Republics  would  care  or 
could  be  heard. 

Mr.  President,  if  there  be  any  difficulty  of  construction  or  any 


SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  243 

valid  point  in  the  assertion  made  by  my  friend,  it  should  have  no 
effect,  because  Costa  Rica  and  Nicaragua  will  not,  I  am  persuaded, 
regard  the  restrictions  claimed  as  material,  and  if  this  statute  is 
enacted,  their  participancy  in  the  project,  their  acceptance  of  stock 
issued  under  the  act,  will  evidence  their  waiver  and  acquiescence. 
Can  it  be  correctly  affirmed  that  if  a  corporation  is  formed  or  reor 
ganized  as  provided  in  this  bill,  and  if  Guatemala  and  Costa  Rica 
accept  stock  issued  under  the  stipulations  therein  contained,  such 
action  is  not  a  waiver  of  the  right,  if  right  there  be,  under  the  con 
struction  contended  for  by  the  Senator  from  Missouri? 

Mr.  VEST.  Suppose  enough  of  these  projectors  are  living  to 
constitute  one-half  of  the  directory  and  they  present  themselves  as 
candidates,  can  anybody  else  take  their  place? 

Mr.  WHITE.  When  that  bridge  is  reached  we  will  cross  it. 
We  are  not  seeking  to  do  everything  at  once.  The  gentlemen  who 
are  opposed  to  this  enterprise  would  not  be  able  to  suit  themselves  if 
the  whole  matter  were  turned  over  to  them  with  unlimited  power  to 
act.  These  objections  seem  to  me  hypercritical. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  If  the  Senator  from  California  will  allow  me, 
before  the  Senator  from  Missouri  leaves  the  Chamber,  I  should  like 
to  ask  him  a  question. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER  (Mr.  PLATT  in  the  chair).  Does 
the  Senator  from  California  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Alabama? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  In  fifty  years  from  now,  when  all  these  pro 
jectors  are  dead,  how  are  you  going  to  get  a  board  of  directors? 

Mr.  VEST.  I  suppose  that  then  nature  will  have  settled  that 
question  :  but  so  long  as  they  are  living  they  are  bound  to  hold  those 
places  if  they  want  to  hold  them. 

Mr.  WTHITE.  The  Senator  from  Missouri  is  fighting  nature; 
I  am  not. 

Mr.  VEST.  I  do  not  propose  to  put  corpses  in  there ;  but  if  they 
are  alive  they  are  entitled  to  hold  their  place  as  directors. 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  Senator  says  if  they  are  alive  they  are  enti 
tled  to  have  the  place.  Mr.  President,  if  the  promoters  of  this  enter 
prise  shall  acquiesce  in  the  plan  outlined  in  this  bill  and  join  with  us 
in  consummating  it,  the  dangers  which  the  opposition  now  anticipate 
will  be  of  no  importance.  It  is  admitted  that  this  bill,  if  enacted 
into  law,  can  not  be  fully  effective  without  certain  subsequent  proceed 
ings.  It  is  conceded  that  we  must  have  the  participancy  of  the  stock 
holders  and  promoters  in  the  execution  of  the  programme  which  we 
have  outlined.  If  the  promoters  of  this  enterprise  and  all  persons 
in  interest  refuse  to  accept  the  tender  made  by  us,  then  realization 
will  be  impossible. 

But  a  conclusive  answer,  both  to  the  argument  of  the  Senator 
from  Indiana  [Mr.  TURPIE]  and  that  of  the  Senator  from  Missouri 
[Mr.  VEST],  is  that  if  the  promoters  accept  this  bill,  and  if  the  repre 
sentatives  of  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica  take  the  stock  to  be  issued  to 
them  under  its  limitations,  no  other  ratification  is  necessary.  Such 
conduct  would  be  conclusive  between  private  parties  in  any  court,  and 
no  international  tribunal,  one  organized  to  arbitrate,  would  for  a 
moment  consider  the  subject  open  to  the  slightest  disputation. 

Mr.  President,  when  I  was  led  into  this  discussion,  I  was  about 
to  refer  to  some  remarks  made  by  the  distinguished  Senator  from 
Indiana  [Mr.  TURPIE],  whose  eloquent  and  interesting  address  was 


244  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

listened  to  with  so  much  interest.  I  understood  that  Senator  to  state 
that  under  the  provisions  of  section  3  $200,000,000  of  liabilities  which 
are  outstanding  because  of  a  contract  with  the  Nicaragua  Construction 
Company  will  remain  a  preferred  claim,  even  as  to  the  United  States. 
I  read  from  section  3 : 

That  in  consideration  of  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  before  any  bonds 
are  issued  under  the  provisions  thereof,  all  the  stock  of  the  Maritime  Canal 
Company  of  Nicaragua  heretofore  subscribed  for  or  issued,  except  as  in  this 
act  provided,  shall  be  called  in,  canceled,  and  restored  to  the  treasury  of  the 
company,  so  that  none  shall  remain  outstanding — 

I  call  specific  and  particular  attention  to  this  clause  — 

all  bonds  issued  by  said  company  and  obligations  to  deliver  bonds  shall  be 
redeemed  and  canceled — 

The  contract  with  the  construction  company  constitutes  an  obli 
gation  to  deliver  bonds,  and  there  is  no  qualification  at  all  in  this 
section.  The  absolute  cancellation  of  all  such  agreements  is  definitely 
required. 

But  section  3  continues  — 

all  outstanding  liabilities  of  'said  company  shall  be  satisfied,  and  all  contracts 
and  agreements  heretofore  made — 

Here  are  the  words  which  are  criticised  by  the  learned  Senator  — 
not  consistent  with  the  provisions  of  this  act,  shall  be  canceled. 

And,  says  the  Senator  from  Indiana,  the  contract  with  the  con 
struction  company  is  consistent  with  the  provisions  of  this  act  because 
the  canal  is  to  be  built  under  it.  But  I  take  it  to  be  palpable,  even 
were  we  compelled  to  rest  upon  this  provision  alone — and,  as  I  shall 
show,  we  are  not  bound  so  to  do  —  that  no  injury  can  result  because 
the  words  "  not  consistent  with  the  provisions  of  this  act  "  refer 
entirely  to  the  concessions  made  by  Costa  Rica  and  Nicaragua,  and 
do  not  relate  to  the  contract  with  the  construction  company.  These 
concessions  are  obviously  consistent  with  this  act,  and  their  retention 
is  essential.  All  contracts  for  the  issuance  of  bonds  shall  be  redeemed 
and  canceled,  for  the  bill  so  declares.  But  there  need  be  no  doubt 
about  this;  it  is  unnecessary  to  quibble  as  to  the  meaning  of  words. 
We  find  on  page  18,  in  section  4,  this  language: 

Such  mortgage  shall  be  so  framed  as  to  be  valid  as  a  first  lien  under  the 
laws  of  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica. 

I  might  here  remark  that  that  mortgage,  concerning  which  so 
much  has  been  said,  must  be  recorded  in  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica 
under  the  official  sanction  of  those  countries.  Will  anyone  pretend 
that  such  action  will  not  constitute  a  ratification? 

But  to  this  point.  I  desire  to  cite  section  7,  which  certainly  dis 
poses  of  the  contention  of  the  Senator  from  Indiana  regarding  the 
priority  of  the  $200,000,000  agreement. 

Sec.  7.  That  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  and  before  any  bonds  indorsed 
under  its  provisions  are  issued,  and  after  the  surrender  and  return  to  the 
treasury  of  the  company  of  all  stock  that  may  have  been  issued,  and  after 
the  surrender  and  cancellation  of  all  bonds,  bond  script,  and  obligations  to 
issue  bonds,  the  satisfaction  of  all  liabilities  of  said  company  and  the  cancel 
lation  and  extinguishment  of  all  contracts  and  agreements  of  said  company 
with  individuals  or  corporations,  except  the  concessions  from  Nicaragua  and 
Costa  Rica,  but  including  its  contract  or  agreement  with  the  Nicaragua  Canal 
Construction  Company  for  the  construction  of  the  said  canal,  as  is  provided 
for  in  this  act. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  245 

Hence  the  surrender,  the  delivery,  the  cancellation  of  the  contract 
with  the  construction  company  is  required  in  direct  and  positive  terms. 
This  surely  disposes  of  the  charge  which  I  have  been  considering. 

I  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  discuss  the  question  of  moral  turpi 
tude  to  which  the  learned  Senator  alluded  when  he  said  that  this 
Government  should  not  contract  with  any  party  or  any  body  of  men 
connected  with  or  responsible  for  such  an  obligation  as  that  just 
named.  I  know  none  of  the  promoters  of  this  enterprise.  I  am  not 
personally  acquainted  with  one  of  them.  I  have  even  casually  seen 
but  one  of  them.  However,  I  understand  that  they  are  fair  business 
men,  and  there  is  no  evidence  reflecting  upon  their  integrity  or  manly 
conduct.  This  bill  is  so  fashioned  that  if  we  do  not  receive  honest 
treatment  it  will  be  because  of  the  misconduct  and  perfidy  of  our  own 
representatives  or  the  indiscretion  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  to  whom  I  understand  some  Senators  are  unwilling  to  delegate 
such  power. 

Mr.  GEORGE.  If  it  will  not  interrupt  the  Senator,  I  should  like 
to  call  his  attention  to  a  constitutional  difficulty  which  I  have. 

Mr.  WHITE.     I  yield  to  the  Senator  for  that  purpose. 

Mr.  GEORGE.  I  agree  with  the  Senator  that  we  have  the  con 
stitutional  power  to  make  this  canal  as  a  Government  work,  providing, 
of  course,  that  we  have  the  consent  of  the  Governments  there. 

Mr.  WHITE.     I  understand  that. 

Mr.  GEORGE.  I  should  like  to  have  the  Senator's  views  upon 
this  question :  Have  we  a  right  to  indorse  as  security  the  bonds  of  a 
corporation  for  the  purpose  of  raising  money  to  build  a  canal?  My 
difficulty  arises  out  of  this.  It  is  a  well-settled  principle,  as  the 
Senator  will  recognize,  that  an  agent  having  power  to  execute  a  bond 
to  borrow  money  for  a  principal,  and  having  that  only,  does  not  have 
included  in  that  power  a  right  to  indorse  the  paper  of  another  party 
in  order  to  raise  money. 

Mr.  WHITE.  It  appears  to  me  that  that  distinction  does  not 
obtain  here.  I  think  there  are  two  or  three  answers  to  the  point  made 
by  the  Senator.  Here,  as  I  have  attempted  to  urge,  we  have  a  right 
to  directly  construct  the  canal  or  to  procure  its  construction  in  aid  of 
commerce,  and  I  hold  that  the  plan  we  propose  to  adopt  to  procure 
the  opening  of  the  same  is  legitimate  and  proper  upon  the  principle 
that  when  the  authority  is  conferred  b>  the  Constitution  to  regulate 
commerce  that  delegation  includes  not  merely  one  method,  not  merely 
a  direct  method,  but  all  incidental  means  which  may  be  necessary  in 
the  judgment  of  Congress  to  accomplish  the  end  designed.  Having 
the  jurisdiction,  the  mode  of  its  exercise  is  a  question  wholly  vested 
in  the  legislative  department  of  the  Government.  The  discretion  rests 
there  to  reach  the  end  by  whatever  channel  may  be  deemed  wise. 

The  United  States  became  a  surety  for  certain  transcontinental 
railroads,  and,  as  I  stated  a  moment  ago,  that  act  upon  the  part  of  the 
Government  has  been  upheld  by  the  Supreme  Court  and  made  to  rest 
wholly  upon  the  commerce  clause  of  the  Constitution,  not  upon  any 
rights  conferred  because  of  war  or  national  peril.  I  repeat,  the  power 
to  regulate  commerce  among  the  States  has  been  decided  to  grant  the 
authority  to  take  upon  our  shoulders  monetary  obligations  with  refer 
ence  to  a  domestic  corporate  enterprise,  and  I  see  no  limitation  in  the 
organic  grant  with  regard  to  foreign  commerce,  nor  do  I  find  anything 
in  the  Constitution  restricting  the  exercise  of  the  subsidy  power  to  our 
own  territorial  limits. 


246  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  VILAS.  If  it  will  not  interrupt  the  Senator,  upon  that 
point  I  wish  to  make  an  inquiry. 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  VILAS.  If  this  Government  can  build  a  canal  under  the 
power  to  regulate  commerce,  could  it  not  also  build  a  railroad? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  VILAS.  If  we  can  build  a  canal  or  a  railroad,  and,  I  sup 
pose,  any  other  highway  of  commerce,  in  the  territory  of  Nicaragua 
and  Costa  Rica,  why  not  anywhere  else  in  the  world? 

Mr.  WHITE.     I  know  not  why  not. 

Mr.  VILAS.  Then  the  contention,  as  I  understand,  is  that,  sub 
ject  to  the  pleasure  of  Congress,  power  is  conferred  by  the  Constitu 
tion  to  build  any  highway,  railroad,  canal,  or  other  similar  instrumen 
tality  of  commerce  anywhere  in  the  known  world.  Is  that  the  propo 
sition  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes,  sir;  if  in  the  judgment  of  Congress  such 
act  would  regulate  our  commerce;  or  it  might  be  done  pursuant  to 
other  great  constitutional  powers  which  are  expressly  delegated. 

Mr.  FRYE.     With  the  consent  of  the  foreign  nation. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Certainly  the  Senator  understands  that  I  assume 
the  consent  of  the  foreign  nation.  I  do  not  assume  that  we  will 
attempt  to  proceed  by  force. 

Mr.  VILAS.  I  take  it  that  is  a  question  of  physical  power.  The 
consent  of  the  foreign  nation  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  constitutional 
power  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  WHITE.  No.  I  presume  we  might  conquer  a  foreign 
nation  and  build  our  canal.  We  could  so  proceed  if  we  desired. 

Mr.  VILAS.  Does  the  Senator  think  any  such  proposition  as 
that  would  have  been  entertained  in  the  secret  chamber  where  the 
Constitution  was  framed  a  hundred  years  or  more  ago? 

Mr.  WHITE.  My  answer  to  the  Senator  is  that  the  argument 
which  he  brings  is  that  which  was  overthrown  in  McCulloch  i<s. 
Maryland,  and  there  the  Chief  Justice  said : 

The  wisdom  and  .the  discretion  of  Congress,  their  identity  with  the  people, 
and  the  influence  which  their  constituents'  possess  at  elections,  are  in  this,  as 
in  manv  other  instances,  as  that,  for  example,  of  declaring  war,  the  sole 
restraints  on  which  they  have  relied  to  secure  them  from  its  abuse.  They  are 
the  restraints  on  which  the  people  must  often  rely  solely  in  all  representative 
governments. 

Mr.  President,  there  is  no  question,  I  think,  that  when  the  power 
is  given  to  Congress  to  regulate  foreign  commerce,  and  to  regulate 
commerce  among  the  States,  there  is  conferred  therewith,  and  as  inci 
dental  to  it,  the  right  to  do  everything  which  may  be  necessary  to  com 
pletely  execute  such  plan  of  regulation  as  Congress  may  see  fit  to 
sanction.  Congress  can  not,  for  the  alleged  purpose  of  regulating 
commerce,  do  that  which  upon  its  face  can  not  conduce  to  such  regula 
tion.  When  it  is  admitted  that  we  may,  at  home,  dig  canals,  make 
harbors,  and  deepen  rivers,  and  when  we  declare  that  this  is  the  valid 
exercise  of  the  right  to  regulate  commerce,  can  we  rationally  affirm 
that  to  dig  a  canal  in  foreign  parts  is  not  a  regulation  of  foreign  com 
merce  while  a  similar  work  in  our  own  country  is  3,  regulation  of 
domestic  commerce  or  commerce  among  the  States? 

Mr.  CAFFERY.     May  I  interrupt  the  Senator  from  California? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Yes,  sir. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  247 

Mr.  CAFFERY.  I  inquire  of  the  Senator  from  California 
whether  he  contends  that  canals  can  be  constructed  in  foreign  territory 
as  a  regulation  of  commerce  with  foreign  nations?  Would  the  Sena 
tor  stop  at  such  an  improvement?  Light-houses,  breakwaters,  any 
work  that  might  facilitate  commerce  in  a  foreign  territory,  under  his 
construction,  could  be  built  and  maintained  by  the  United  States.  I 
want  to  know  whether  he  would  extend  his  rule  as  to  canals  to  include 
every  construction  that  we  adopt  in  this  country  to  facilitate  com 
merce  to  foreign  shores? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  will  answer  the  Senator's  question.  Even 
courts  of  very  high  character  frequently  have  occasion  to  say  "  the 
question  is  not  now  before  us;"  but  I  have  no  objection  to  answering 
the  question  of  the  Senator,  though  there  may  possibly  be  some 
exceptions  to  which  my  mind  does  not  now  revert.  I  will  answer  by 
stating  a  supposable  case.  If,  for  instance,  it  should  appear  to  this 
Government  that  the  construction  of  a  light-house  upon  the  Falkland 
Islands  were  necessary  in  order  to  prevent  disaster  to  our  commerce, 
I  should  have  no  doubt  of  the  power  of  Congress  to  make  an  appro 
priation  to  put  up  such  a  light-house  and  thus  save  our  commerce. 

Mr.  CAFFERY.  Will  the  Senator  yield  to  me  for  another  ques 
tion? 

Mr.  WHITE.     I  will. 

Mr.  CAFFERY.  The  Senator  cited  the  case  of  McCulloch  vs. 
Maryland  as  proving  the  general  principle  that  any  instrumentality 
necessary  and  proper  to  carry  into  execution  any  of  the  powers  of  the 
Constitution  was  authorized.  Now,  I  inquire  of  the  Senator  whether 
the  construction  of  a  canal  anywhere  in  the  United  States  or  in  foreign 
territory,  according  to  his  view,  would  not  necessarily  imply  that  the 
commerce  that  flowed  through  that  canal  would  be  under  the  jurisdic 
tion  of  the  United  States  before  the  instrumentality  would  be  war 
ranted  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  By  no  means.  I  do  not  understand  that  it  is 
necessary  to  own  ships  which  may  pass  through  a  canal  or  over  our 
rivers  and  harbors,  or  that  the  possession  of  dominion  over  the  soil 
is  requisite.  I  understand  that  the  great  canal  which  has  been  con 
structed  on  the  Canadian  line  is  not  wholly  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  United  States.  Whether  we  shall  improve  navigation  without  our 
territorial  limits  is  wholly  a  matter  of  judgment. 

I  undertake  to  say  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  —  at  least 
if  the  interpretation  of  Judge  Marshall  be  correct,  and  it  has  long 
stood  unquestioned  —  expected  that  there  would  be  honesty,  sound 
discretion,  fair  ability  among  those  who  would  be  summoned  to  legis 
late  for  the  Republic,  and  it  was  thought  that  the  necessity  of  concur 
rence  by  both  Houses  and  the  existence  of  the  veto  power  would  ren 
der  usurpation  and  extravagance  improbable. 

If,  indeed,  it  shall  come  to  pass  that  dire  calamity  overtakes  the 
nation  because  this  discretion  is  vested  in  the  legislative  department, 
it  will  be  due  to  national  incompetency.  Congress  has  the  ability  to 
declare  war  without  limitation  or  restraint.  We  might  constitu 
tionally  plunge  our  country  into  endless  and  fatal  strife.  But  this 
possibility  did  not  alarm  the  founders  of  our  Government. 

When  I  was  interrupted  I  was  considering  some  of  the  criticisms 
made  by  the  learned  Senator  from  Indiana.  I  did  not  have  the  pleas 
ure  of  listening  to  his  first  address,  but  noted  his  remarks  in  the 
RECORD.  I  find  that  he  objects  to  the  entire  project  of  the  Isthmian 


248  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

canal  in  Nicaragua  or  anywhere  in  the  tropics;  that,  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Senator,  it  is  impossible  to  carry  out  a  project  like  this,  even 
when  organized  under  a  more  desirable  supervision  than  he  seems  to 
think  is  designed  here. 

Mr.  TURPIE.     Will  the  Senator  allow  me? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Will  the  Senator  from  Cali 
fornia  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Indiana? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  TURPIE.     I  have  expressed  no  such  opinion. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  understood  the  Senator  to  state  that  owing  to 
earthquakes  and  floods  it  was  impossible  in  the  tropical  belt  to  do 
such  work  as  that  proposed.  It  seems  I  was  mistaken,  and  I  of  course 
admit  the  error,  as  the  Senator  disclaims  any  such  intention. 

Mr.  TURPIE.     Will  the  Senator  allow  me? 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Does  the  Senator  from  Cali 
fornia  yield? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  TURPIE.  The  word  "  earthquake "  will  not  be  found 
either  in  the  first  or  second  edition  of  my  remarks.  :'  Teredo  "  will  be 
found  there  and  found  also  in  Mr.  Menocal's  report. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  probably  confounded  the  statements  of  the  Sen 
ator  in  this  regard.  He  spoke  of  the  earth  bursting  open  because,  I 
presume,  of  the  prevailing  heat,  and  he  alluded  to  the  tremendous 
rainfall  which  dissolves  a  considerable  portion  of  the  country.  This 
statement  has  left  me  somewhat  in  doubt  as  to  whether  there  is  any 
thing  remaining  in  Nicaragua  which  can  be  washed  away  or  burned. 

Mr.  President,  so  far  as  that  part  of  the  continent  is  concerned  I 
have  not  made  any  personal  investigation,  nor  has  the  Senator  from 
Indiana;  but  I  have,  as  he  has,  friends  who  have  been  there.  I  am 
acquainted  with  many  gentlemen  of  reputation  and  standing  who  have 
been  engaged  in  business  in  that  country.  The  commercial  relations 
between  the  part  of  the  Union  whence  I  come  and  Nicaragua  have 
been  close.  Some  of  our  citizens  have  engaged  in  agricultural  pur 
suits  in  Central  America.  From  these  and  other  sources  I  have  infor 
mation  from  which  I  can  conclude  that  it  is  true,  as  Mr.  Menocal 
says,  that  in  the  high  lands  and  above  the  lower  San  Juan  —  the  mias 
matic  region  to  which  the  Senator  alluded  —  there  is  found  a  rich 
soil,  capable  of  producing  fine  and  heavy  crops,  that  the  forest  growth 
is  great,  and  the  hills  and  valleys  are  by  no  means  barren  or  forbid 
ding.  Indeed,  the  land  is  exceptionally  fertile  and  the  production 
superabundant,  and  the  climate  is  both  pleasant  and  healthful. 

It  seems  to  me  that  if  the  effect  of  the  extraordinary  rainfall 
which  occurs  periodically  in  Nicaragua  was  such  as  the  Senator  from 
Indiana  described,  there  would  be  nothing  in  the  nature  of  a  crop 
possible.  It  would  not  be  practicable  to  raise  coffee  or  any  sort  of 
small  product  if  the  soil,  when  disturbed  for  purposes  of  cultivation, 
must  be  swept  away  by  torrents  from  the  sky. 

I  have  been  told  that,  although  there  is  heavy  and  frequent  rain 
and  while  it  is  quite  warm  at  certain  seasons,  nevertheless  the  conse 
quence  of  these  conditions  is  to  stimulate  the  crops  and  rapidly  mature 
the  natural  growth.  Earth  embankments  thrown  up  anywhere  in  that 
country  and  composed  of  average  material  will  soon  be  so  covered 
with  vegetation  as  to  easily  resist  atmospheric  disturbances.  If  the 
contrary  be  true,  why  have  not  the  hills  been  converted  into  barren 
desert  sentinels? 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  249 

The  Senator  from  Indiana  speaks  of  the  teredo.  The  learned 
Senator  says  upon  the  authority  of  an  engineer,  whose  name  does  not 
appear,  that  the  teredo  at  Grey  Town  will  attack  a  creosoted  pile  and 
destroy  it  in  six  months,  and  he  added  with  a  great  deal  of  emphasis 
that  after  the  creosoted  pile  had  been  in  use  for  a  time  the  teredo 
became  more  vigorous  in  its  ravages  because  of  the  presence  of  creo 
sote.  In  other  words,  piles  a  la  creosote  is  the  favorite  dish  of  the 
Grey  Town  teredo. 

While  I  have  not  constructed  canals,  while  I  am  not  an  engineer, 
and  while  I  must  confess  that  I  am  not  qualified  to  go  over  an  engi 
neering  proposition  and  announce  dogmatically  to  the  world  whether 
or  not  it  may  be  carried  out,  yet  I  have  had  occasion  to  notice  the 
action  of  the  teredo  upon  piles.  I  know  that  the  creosote  treatment 
has  been  long  utilized ;  and  that  lately  methods  have  been  improved 
with  the  result  that  the  wood  remains  safe  from  the  teredo  for  years. 

I  telegraphed  yesterday  to  Mr.  William  D.  English,  who  is  now 
surveyor  of  the  port  of  San  Francisco,  and  who  was  a  State  harbor 
commissioner  acting  at  that  city  for  an  extended  period  and  whom  I 
know  to  have  had  experience  in  this  matter.  He  has  made  the  subject 
a  study  in  connection  with  his  business  as  a  harbor  commissioner. 

He  telegraphed  me  as  follows : 

With   Pacific    Coast    experience  of   six   or   eight  years,   piles   not   attacked. 
Properly  creosoted  timber,  with  good  creosote,  should  last  twenty-five  years. 

I  know  this  gentleman  to  be  a  practical  man.  The  information  is 
thoroughly  reliable.  The  assertion  that  by  adequate  creosoting  piles 
can  not  be  protected  from  the  teredo  for  more  than  six  months  is  an 
error.  The  person  who  made  that  statement  to  the  Senator  from 
Indiana  does  not  know  anything  about  it.  It  makes  no  difference 
to  me  who  he  is  or  whence  he  comes. 

Mr.  SQUIRE.  May  I  interrupt  the  Senator  from  California  for 
a  moment? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  SQUIRE.  I  do  not  desire  to  make  an  extended  remark.  I 
simply  wish  to  confirm,  from  personal  knowledge,  the  statement  of 
the  Senator  from  California.  I  myself  happen  to  have  been  engaged 
in  building  wharves  on  the  Pacific  Coast  for  my  own  business  pur 
poses.  I  have  had  piles  treated  with  the  creosoting  preparation,  and 
they  have  stood  now  for  several  years.  I  know  it  to  be  very  valuable. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  took  occasion,  also,  to  telegraph  to  an  able  engi 
neer  residing  in  the  city  of  Los  Angeles,  Mr.  Hagood.  He  is  a  man 
of  wide  knowledge,  and  has  within  the  last  three  years  had  experience 
in  wharf  construction  in  waters  where  the  teredo  is  common.  He 
places  the  limit  at  ten  years. 

I  do  not  consider  this  issue  of  peculiar  importance  because  we  can 
easily  dispense  with  piling  in  Grey  Town,  but  I  mention  it  to  show  how 
the  unskilled  are  readily  deceived  and  to  illustrate  the  folly  of  reliance 
upon  anything  save  the  evidence  of  qualified  judges. 

Mr/  CAFFERY.     Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER  (Mr.  GALUNGE*  in  the  chair). 
Does  the  Senator  from  California  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Louisiana  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  CAFFERY.  I  should  like  to  know  from  the  Senator  from 
California  whether  he  has  any  expert  testimony  in  regard,  to  the 
ravages  of  the  teredo  at  the  mouth  of  the  canal? 

Mr.  WHITE.     No,  sir. 
17 


250  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  CAFFERY.  Will  the  Senator  permit  me  to  make  a  state 
ment? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  CAFFERY.  I  saw  about  four  days  ago  a  series  of  photo 
graphs  of  the  breakwater  constructed  at  the  mouth -of  the  San  Juan 
River,  and  they  show  the  piling  that  was  driven  in  forming-  the  break 
water  was  almost  entirely  destroyed  by  the  teredo.  The  photographs 
were  in  the  possession  of  an  engineer  who  took  them  or  said  he  took 
them  himself. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  hope  the  Senator  from  Louisiana  does  not  mis 
understand  me.  I  have  seen  wood  that  had  been  under  sea  water 
honeycombed  as  the  result  of  the  action  of  the  teredo.  No  doubt  the 
teredo  will  perforate  an  exposed  surface  not  properly  treated  with 
creosote;  no  doubt  a  naked  pile  located  where  the  teredo  is  common 
and  possesses  the  vitality  displayed  in  the  Pacific  will  be  almost  con 
sumed  in  a  limited  time ;  but  my  assertion  is  that  modern  methods  of 
creosoting  are  such  that  piles  may  be  protected.  I  have  quoted  from 
those  who  have  tried  it  and  whose  business  it  is  to  carry  on  work  of 
this  kind,  men  of  positive  knowledge. 

Mr.  CAFFERY.  I  will  state  to  the  Senator  that  it  appears  from 
the  statement  of  the  work  on  the  breakwater  made  by  Mr.  Menocal,  I 
believe,  that  the  piles  which  formed  the  breakwater  were  very  care 
fully  creosoted  before  they  were  driven. 

Mr.  WHITE.  It  is  evident  they  were  not  properly  creosoted. 
There  is  no  doubt  about  that.  Perhaps  at  the  date  referred  to  the 
application  of  creosote  was  not  thoroughly  comprehended.  However; 
this  is  an  incidental  question,  upon  which  I  do  not  care  to  spend  more 
time. 

Now,  I  desire  to  attract  attention  to  another  matter.  As  far  as 
the  construction  of  the  breakwater,  or  indeed  as  any  other  branch  of 
the  work  is  concerned,  if  it  be  found  that  the  criticisms  of  the  Senator 
from  Indiana  [Mr.  TURPIE]  shall  prove  well  founded,  it  is  easy 
enough  to  take  advantage  of  his  labors,  and  as  the  work  progresses 
to  adopt  such  methods  as  may  be  found  desirable  to  obviate  suggested 
difficulties.  There  is  nothing  in  the  bill  requiring  the  company  to  put 
piles  at  Grey  Town  rather  than  rock;  there  is  nothing  in  the  bill  lim 
iting  the  amount  of  rock  which  shall  be  used  in  the  Ochoa  Dam  or  in 
any  other  construction.  It  is  true  that  alterations  may  enhance  the 
cost,  but  the  revision  board  which  investigated  Mr.  Menocal's  esti 
mates  added  20  per  cent,  because  it  was  considered  possible  that  modi 
fications  might  be  needful. 

The  Senator  from  Indiana,  in  discussing  the  question  of  rock 
fill,  stated  in  answer  to  an  interrogatory  addressed  to  him  by  the  Sena 
tor  from  Mississippi  [Mr.  GEORGE:]  that  when  the  water  flowed  over 
the  Ochoa  Dam  it  would  fall  not  upon  rock  merely,  but  upon  the 
composition  of  rock  and  earth  to  which  he  referred.  I  desire  to  quote 
the  statement  of  Mr.  Menocal  as  to  what  he  means  by  u  rock  fill  "  and 
to  show  that  the  Senator  from  Indiana  is  mistaken  as  to  the  interpre 
tation  of  those  words.  I  refer  to  page  217  of  the  report  of  the  com 
mittee,  being  a  portion  of  the  testimony  taken,  as  follows : 

Q.     What   kind    of   a    dam   do   you    propose   to   build   there? 

A.  I  have  proposed  to  build  a  rock-fill  dam;  that  is,  a  dam  made  of  rock 
dumped  in  the  river  and  allowed  to  take  its  natural  slope.  The  work  of  dis 
tributing  the  material  will  be  done  by  the  force  of  the  water  and  its  scour- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  251 

ing  action  on  the  bottom  until  the  proper  equilibrium  is  established.  In  this 
way  I  expect  that  the  company  would  have  a  very  cheap  and  safe  dam. 

Q.  Well,  having  got  your  rocks  in  in  that  way,  how  can  you  make  a  dam 
tight? 

A.  We  have  so  much  surplus  water  that  I  do  not  think  we  will  make  any 
efforts  to  make  the  dam  tight,  but  if  it  was  required  to  make  it  tight,  all  we 
have  to  do  is  to  make  a  deposit  of  sand,  clay,  and  other  material  on  the  upper 
slope  of  the  dam. 

Again,  Mr.  Menocal,  in  referring  to  the  character  of  the.  struc 
ture,  says  that  it  is  "  an  artificial  mountain  across  the  river." 

Again,  it  will  be  found  from  the  committee's  report  that  it  is 
contemplated  to  fill  in  with  large  rocks  and  then  to  use  the  earth 
referred  to  as  backing.  That  is  the  plan. 

Menocal  says  in  the  course  of  his  report : 

All  the  embankments  resting  on  the  valley  or  swamp  level  are  designed 
of  rock-fill  and  earth  backing  with  three  parallel  rows  of  sea  piling  between 
abutments. 

He  also  says,  in  speaking  of  the  Ochoa  Dam,  that  it  will  be  built 
of  rock  fill  and  earth  backing,  in  all  respects  similar  to  the  other  large 
embankments  and  weirs : 

The  upper  portion  and  long  flat  apron  will  be  composed  of  stone  of  the 
largest  dimensions  that  can  be  properly  handled  and  arranged,  the  interstices 
being  filled  from  behind  with  small  stones,  gravel,  and  earth  dumped  from 
suitable  trestles. 

Mr.  Harvey,  in  speaking  of  the  Ochoa  Dam  plan,  says  that  it  will 
be  as  firm  as  the  primitive  hills  by  which  it  is  flanked.  It  is  clearly 
shown  by  Harvey's  report  that  the  Ochoa  Dam  is  not  a  wonderful 
conception  as  compared  with  other  constructions  in  various  parts  of 
the  world. 

I  confess,  as  I  stated  before,  that  I  have  not  the  technical  knowl 
edge  nor  the  capacity  to  authorize  the  statement  that  such  dam  would 
be  the  best  or  that  it  would  not  suit  the  purpose  at  all.  I  take  it  that 
men  who  have  made  practical  tests  are  better  informed  than  I  am, 
and  I  assume  that  an  engineer  whose  success  in  life,  whose  reputation 
depends  upon  the  verity  of  his  statements  in  matters  of  this  sort,  will 
pause  long  before  he  will  impose  upon  the  public  an  expert  opinion, 
the  error  of  which  must  soon  be  made  manifest. 

Take  the  case  of  Mr.  Harvey,  whose  thorough  review  is  con 
tained  in  this  record,  and  who  has  gone  over  the  whole  project.  He 
is  a  man  of  admittedly  high  reputation,  of  good  character,  and  demon 
strated  capacity.  His  connection  with  the  enterprise  is  that  of  an 
engineer  engaged  to  report  to  his  employers  as  to  the  feasibility  of 
the  scheme.  Can  it  be  that  one  of  his  ability,  of  his  standing,  and  of 
his  future,  will  not  only  mislead  his  clients,  but  will  peril  all  for  the 
mere  purpose  of  aiding  certain  parties  temporarily  in  an  affair  which  if 
impracticable  must  quickly  come  to  grief  ?  I  do  not  believe  it.  When 
an  honest  witness  possesses  knowledge,  when  he  has  shown  by  his 
works  that  he  is  competent,  when  he  comes  forward  and  gives  his 
evidence  I  will  act  on  it  until  it  is  overcome  by  the  testimony  of  per 
sons  who  leave  darkness  and  subject  themselves  to  public  scrutiny  and 
examination.  I  have  heard  it  stated  that  engineers  do  not  care  to 
come  here  and  make  statements  adverse  to  this  enterprise.  I  can  not 
see  that  any  evil  can  happen  to  anyone  who  may  give  such  information. 
No  threats  are,  have  been,  or  will  be  made.  Surely  Senators  are  all 


252  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

anxious  to  learn  the  truth  and  will  welcome  any  testimony  taken 
before  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  or  elsewhere  given,  which 
will  throw  any  light  whatever  upon  the  scene.  Until  those  who  have 
technical  attainments  satisfy  me  that  the  canal  can  not  be  made  as 
planned,  I  will  continue  to  credit  Mr.  Menocal. 

I  do  not  intend  to  discuss  the  relative  merits  of  the  Panama 
and  Nicaragua  schemes.  I  will  refer  anyone  anxious  to  make  the 
comparison  not  only  to  the  statements  in  our  report  but  also  to  the 
address  which  Admiral  Ammen  delivered  before  the  Naval  Institute 
at  Annapolis  in  March,  1887,  wherein  he  disclosed  many  reasons  for 
favoring  the  construction  of  the  canal  at  Nicaragua. 

Mr.  President,  many  statements  have  been  made  by  Senators  to 
the  effect  that  the  explorations  upon  the  canal  route  are  insufficient. 
I  happen  to  be  acquainted  with  a  gentleman  who  has  done  much  work 
upon  the  line,  a  man  who  aided  in  building  some  twelve1  miles  of  rail 
road  along  the  San  Juan.  He  at  present  resides  in  Los  Angeles 
County.  I  telegraphed  to  him  some  days  ago  concerning  the  climatic 
conditions  in  Nicaragua  and  also  with  reference  to  his  investigations 
generally ;  and  the  answer  is  given  in  the  following  dispatch : 

MONROVIA,  CAL.,  January  8,  1895. 

I  built  twelve  miles  of  railroad,  did  some  harbor  and  other  work,  spent 
two  years  diamond  drill  boring  when  necessary.  No  climatic  difficulties. 

J.   B.   HARRIS. 

Afterwards  he  wrote  more  fully  to  Mr.  J.  De  Earth  Shorb,  of  San 
Gabriel,  Cal.,  and  the  letter  having  been  transmitted  to  me,  I  will 
read  it,  as  Mr.  Harris  knows  something  of  the  situation  from  personal 
inspection  and  because  of  professional  knowledge: 

MY  DEAR  SIR  :  I  am  sorry  that  I  was  away  from  home  when  you  called  to 
ask  me  what  I  know  about  the  Nicaragua  Canal,  so  I  write  this  for  your 
information.  *  *  *  As  a  contractor  I  have  spent  over  two  years  in  making 
a  most  thorough  examination  of  the  work  to  be  done  to  complete  the  canal. 
These  examinations  extended  over  the  whole  length  of  the  canal  where  deep 
excavations  are  to  be  made.  I  bored  holes  every  50  feet  along  the  line  from 
the  surface  to  the  bottom  with  diamond  drills  and  thus  informed  myself  of 
the  character  of  the  rock  that  is  to  be  excavated.  Where  locks,  dams,  and 
embankments  are  to  be  built  I  also  made  borings,  soundings,  excavations,  etc., 
to  satisfy  myself  as  to  the  character  of  the  foundations  of  such  structures. 

The  same  matter  appears  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Menocal, 
although  it  was  said  here  that  there  was  no  evidence  that  such  borings 
have  been  made.  Mr.  Harris  continues : 

I  also  examined  the  country  round  about  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  what 
building  material  could  be  had  there,  and  found  an  abundance  of  the  best 
limestone,  also  plenty  building  rock  for  locks,  etc.,  and  a  great  deal  of  suit 
able  timber  for  use  in  construction.  In  addition  to  all  this,  Mr.  C.  P.  Treat, 
of  Chicago,  a  practical  contractor,  and  myself  built  12  miles  of  railroad  there 
and  on  the  most  difficult  portion  of  the  whole  line,  and  I  will  here  mention 
that  we  built  this  12  miles  of  railroad  at  a  cost  of  $7,000  less  per  mile  than  Mr. 
Menocal's  (chief  engineer)  estimated  cost  of  railroad  line.  Our  principal 
object,  however,  in  building  this  railroad  and  doing  other  work  there  was  not 
so  much  to  make  money  for  ourselves  as  it  was  to  post  ourselves  as  to  the 
character  of  the  laborers  that  could  be  had  there  to  build  the  canal  later  on. 
We  also  made  thorough  examinations  of  the  harbor  work  to  be  done  and  did 
some  harbor  work  on  the  Atlantic  side.  From  all  this  you  will  see  that  I 
should  be  well  informed  as  to  the  cost  of  building  the  canal,  including  locks, 
dams,  and  harbors.  After  making  all  these  examinations  we  made  a  proposal 
to  the  canal  company  to  build  and  complete  the  whole  canal,  including  the 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  253 

harbors  and  all  work  there  to  be  done,  and  deliver  the  canal  completed  at  the 
estimated  cost  of  Mr.  Menocal,  the  chief  engineer,  and  to  have  the  canal  com 
pleted  in  five   years,   of  course   giving   bonds. 
Yours    very  truly, 

J.   B.   HARRIS. 

In  conversing  with  Mr.  Harris  before  coming  to  Washington,  he 
referred  specifically  to  numerous  borings  which  he  had  made  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  the  rock  to  be  removed  was  solid 
throughout,  its  general  character,  etc.  That  such  work  was  done  is 
shown  by  the  committee's  report. 

Borings  were  made  at  numerous  points  along  the  route.  (Report, 
129.) 

It  required  the  constant  labor  of  six  surveying  parties  and  the  boring 
party  six  months  before  the  location  of  the  upper  route  was  agreed  upon. 
(Page  130.) 

Numerous  borings  were  made  along  the  whole  route.   (Page  139). 

The  locks  are  to  be  built  of  concrete.     (Report,  page  219.) 

"  Most  all  excavations  for  locks  will,  be  in  rock."  (Report, 
page  220.) 

I  know  California  contractors  who  are  anxious  to  take  much  of 
this  work  within  Mr.  Menocal's  figures.  As  to  the  route  through 
the  lower  lands,  I  do  not  agree  that  an  advantageous  change  might 
be  made  by  following  the  river.  I  think  Mr.  Menocal  explodes  this 
theory  effectively.  An  inspection  of  the  testimony  in  the  report  will 
satisfy  an  impartial  mind  that  the  upper  route  is  preferable  and  less 
liable  to  be  disturbed  by  the  river.  The  fact  that  the  bed  of  the  San 
Juan  is  uncertain  is  sufficient  to  warrant  the  conclusion  reached  by 
Mr.  Menocal.  However,  I  repeat,  I  do  not  utter  anything  dogmatic 
upon  the  subject  of  engineering. 

Perhaps  there  is  no  one  more  familiar  with  the  country  around 
about  this  canal  than  Capt.  William  L.  Merry,  of  California,  whose 
statement  is  contained  in  the  report.  He  lately  penned  me  a  note, 
which  I  will  read,  as  it  contains  much  valuable  material.  Says  Cap 
tain  Merry : 

I  lived  on  the  canal  line  for  nearly  three  years,  in  charge  of  the  transit 
route  when  Cala  passengers  were  crossing  it  in  1865,  1866,  and  1867.  During 
that  time  I  was  a  great  deal  on  the  river  San  Juan  in  boats  and  steamers,  day 
and  night.  I  was  never  seriously  ill  while  there;  never  had  an  attack 
of  the  fever  and  ague,  and  the  general  health  of  the  employees  of  the  company 
was  good.  Many  of  them  were  Americans.  On  the  lower  San  Juan  the  land 
is  alluvial,  vegetation  dense,  and  rainfall  heavy ;  like  all  river  bottoms  malaria 
is  found,  and  fever  and  ague  result,  seldom  of  a  dangerous  type.  Farther 
up  the  river  and  in  the  lake  region  the  land  is  higher,  rainfall  less,  and 
climate  fine.  True,  it  is  a  tropical  climate,  but  nights  are  cool  and  the  north 
east  trade  winds  temper  the  sun's  heat  and  prevent  malarial  diseases. 

The  Nicaragua  Isthmus  is  healthy,  because  the  low  summit  level  and  the 
great  lakes  draw  the  northeast  tides  from  the  Caribbean  Sea  over  it.  It  is 
a  marine  tropical  climate.  The  health  of  the  many  exploring  expeditions  on 
the  Isthmus  proves  the  correctness  of  my  assertions.  I  do  not  state  that 
unacclimated  Americans  will  not  get  chills  and  fever  on  the  lower  San  Juan, 
but  I  do  assert  that  any  American  going  there  and  living  carefully  as  at  home, 
will  not  suffer  from  the  climate  any  more  than  in  the  lower  Mississippi  Valley 
and  other  parts  of  the  United  States.  That  there  will  be  some  difficult  work 
on  the  canal  I  have  no  doubt,  but  none  as  difficult  as  the  Central  Pacific  Rail 
road  presented.  The  restoration  of  the  Port  of  San  Juan  del  Norte  is  no 
uncertain  factor ;  but  it  may  cost  more  than  estimated.  I  am  of  opinion  that 
nearly  every  other  part  of  the  work  will  cost  little  if  any  more  than  the  revised 
engineer's  estimates. 


254  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

I  have  carefully  studied  all  the  surveys  during  the  past  fourteen  years  and 
am  very  familiar  with  the  details.  Mr.  Menocal  allows  large  prices  for  the 
work;  much  of  it  can  be  done  cheaper  than  he  estimates,  some  portions  may 
cost  a  little  more.  I  know  of  Chicago  contractors  who  will  build  the  Pacific 
division  for  Menocal's  estimate,  including  the  25  per  cent  contingency  allowed; 
but  this  division,  between  Lake  Nicaragua  and  the  Pacific,  is  the  easiest  part 
of  the  work,  except  the  dredging  work  at  the  Atlantic  terminus  and  in  the 
lake.  Regarding  the  Ochoa  Dam,  the  project  of  a  rock-fill  dam  is  somewhat 
novel,  but  greater  streams  than  the  San  Juan  are  crossed  with  higher  dams 
in  many  countries,  and  if  a  rock-fill  dam  is  objected  to  a  dam  of  ordinary  but 
more  expensive  character  can  be  built.  But  as  the  rock  is  necessarily  taken 
from  the  eastern  divide  and  must  be  disposed  of  the  rock-fill  dam  appears 
advantageous.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Ochoa  Dam  is  not  a  retain 
ing  dam,  but  used  merely  to  raise  the  river  bed.  The  criticism  about  the 
embankments  used  are  fallacious,  because  no  engineer  doubts  that  safe  embank 
ments  can  be  made  at  a.  reasonable  cost.  If  good  clay,  impervious  to  water, 
is  not  obtainable  stone  can  be  used  in  the  central  portion  of  the  work ;  it  will 
cost  more,  but  is  perhaps  safer,  and  safety  is  a  necessity.  The  port  of  Brito 
is  much  like  Port  Harford  on  our  coast,  and  a  harbor  can  easily  be  built 
there. 

Port  Harford  is  mentioned  in  the  river  and  harbor  act  passed  by 
this  Congress.  The  Government  has  been  improving  it  for  some  time, 
and  no  engineering  difficulties  of  moment  have  been  encountered. 

I  have  personally  examined  it.  On  the  whole  the  Nicaragua  Canal  is  not  a 
difficult  work;  formidable  only  owing  to  its  extent,  and  it  is  a  safe  work.  Earth 
quakes  are  not  to  be  as  much  feared  as  in  San  Francisco,  for  all  the  structures 
are  below  the  surface  and  the  canal  line  has  been  seldom  disturbed  by  them 
during  the  last  century.  I  yield  to  no  one  on  the  thorough  understanding  of 
this  question.  It  has  been  with  me  the  study  of  a  lifetime,  with  the  advan 
tage  of  a  long  personal  observation.  Besides  Mr.  Menocal,  civil  engineer 
United  States  Navy,  you  have  in  Washington  Admiral  Ammen,  United  States 
Navy,  who  has  personally  examined  the  route;  Maj.  George  W.  Davis,  United 
States  Army,  at  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  who  is  very  familiar  with 
the  surveys,  although  he  has  not  visited  the  canal  line.  Maj.  C.  E.  Dut- 
ton,  United  States  Army,  has  also  examined  the  canal  line  and  surveys,  spe 
cially  in  relation  to  the  possibility  of  damage  by  earthquakes. 

I  will  add  that  Major  Button's  statement  is  contained  in  this 
record : 

I  do  not  know  if  Major  Dutton  is  accessible  to  you,  but  think  he  is.  I  am 
as  familiar  with  the  canal  line  as  you  are  with  Spring  street,  Los  Angeles,  and 
rely  on  my  own  knowledge,  but  in  so  doing  I  have  the  support  of  all  civil  engi 
neers  who  have  examined  the  canal  line  personally  or  otherwise.  The  time  has 
passed  for  assertions  as  to  the  practicability  of  a  canal  at  Nicaragua.  When 
I  state  as  a  fact  that  a  6oo-ton  steamer,  under  natural  conditions,  can  go  from 
New  York  or  New  Orleans  and  up  the  San  Juan  River  during  the  rainy 
season  and  approach  within  i2i  miles  of  the  Pacific,  on  Lake  Nicaragua,  I 
merely  prove  how  much  the  Almighty  has  done  to  encourage  the  engineer 
in  uniting  the  oceans  at  Nicaragua.  The  Nicaragua  Canal  will  be  soon  con 
structed ;  there  is  no  doubt  of  that!  The  question  before  the  legislators  of 
our  Republic  is,  shall  it  be  an  American  canal  under  American  control,  for 
the  benefit  of  our  citizens,  or  a  foreign  canal  under  European  control,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  parties  or  the  nation  that  build  it?  And  we  can  not  much 
longer  pursue  "  a-dog-in-the-manger "  policy  about  it,  or  the  control  will 
either  leave  us  or  be  retained  at  a  vastly  increased  cost,  possibly  of  blood  as 
well  as  treasure.  To  the  United  States  the  canal  means  build  by,  or  fight,  with 
the  alternative  of  a  back  seat  among  the  nations  of  the  earth. 

Comments  similar  to  those  made  by  Captain  Merry  concerning 
the  construction  of  the  canal  and  its  general  utility  have  been  substan 
tially  presented  by  many  other  equally  trustworthy  persons.  Admiral 
Ammen  in  his.  address  delivered  at  the  Naval  Institute  at  Annapolis 
used  this  phraseology: 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  255 

I  can  assure  my  brother  officers  that  the  Nicaragua  Canal  will  be  made,  and 
soon,  too.  Whether  we  as  a  people  will  or  will  not  have  any  control  of  it, 
seems,  as  far  as  I  know,  a  question  of  indifference  to  the  executive  branch  of 
our  Government,  or  a  doubt  as  to  its  constitutional  powers,  that  may  throw 
the  construction  of  the  canal  into  European  hands,  and  with  it  the  control 
of  our  coasting  trade. 

Mr.  President,  it  passes  without  saying  that  boards  of  trade  and 
chambers  of  commerce  throughout  this  country  having  before  them 
all  the  facts,  and  knowing  trade  necessities  and  the  advantages  to  flow 
from  the  consummation  of  this  great  work,  have  urgently  requested 
the  passage  of  the  pending  bill. 

No  considerable  portion  of  our  people  oppose  this  canal.  Certain 
interests  engaged  in  transcontinental  traffic  antagonize  it.  Corpora 
tions  which  have  long  reaped  unconscionable  rewards  from  the  pro 
ducers  of  the  Pacific  Slope  have  not  hesitated  to  condemn  it,  and  to 
ridicule  Menocal  and  others  in  their  struggles  to  furnish  water  com 
petition.  This  opposing  element  does  not  take  into  consideration  the 
truth  that  cheap  freight  rates  must  eventuate  in  enormously  increased 
patronage.  But  monopolies  seldom  recognize  the  accuracy  of  this 
proposition. 

Much  has  been  said  here  and  elsewhere  with  reference  to  the 
mortgage  described  in  the  bill.  It  has  been  called  worthless.  The 
power  to  execute  it  has  been  assailed,  because  of  the  stipulations  in  the 
concessions  made  by  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica.  No  one  has  pre 
tended  that  there  is  a  word  in  either  concession  forbidding  the  holding 
of  stock  by  the  United  States.  If  the  enterprise  is  to  be  successful  — 
and  the  friends  of  the  bill  confidently  anticipate  its  success  —  then  the 
ownership  of  such  a  large  majority  of  the  stock  and  the  consequent 
control  of  the  corporation  furnish  ample  security,  in  my  judgment,  to 
justify  the  guarantee  which  this  bill  contemplates. 

It  is  wholly  incorrect  to  say  that  we  are  presenting  a  vast  sum  of 
money  to  the  promoters  of  this  enterprise.  All  private  parties  inter 
ested  in  the  scheme  will  no  doubt  realize  something  —  no  more,  I 
think,  than  fair  dealing  and  the  exigencies  of  the  situation  justify. 
But  in  the  end  our  Government  will  be  the  dominating  factor.  Besides, 
the  discretion  vested  in  the  President  of  the  United  States  makes 
Executive  concurrence  essential.  He  may  stop  payment.  He  can 
control  the  directory.  In  short,  we  or  our  representatives  have  all 
others  connected  with  the  canal  most  securely  bound.  Hence,  even 
if  the  strictures  indulged  in  with  relation  to  the  mortgage  are  well 
founded,  I  would  not  hesitate  to  go  on.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  as  I 
have  already  had  occasion  to  observe,  the  bill  provides  for  the  practical 
ratification  of  the  mortgage  by  the  Governments  of  Costa  Rica  and 
Nicaragua,  and  if  these  States  accept  stock  issued  under  this  bill,  and 
by  act  of  their  legislative  departments  authorize  the  recording  of  the 
mortgage  containing  a  specific  description  of  the  property  mortgaged, 
such  act  will  amount  to  a  ratification  of  the  mortgage  and  a  waiver  of 
all  possible  objections. 

Mr.  CAFFERY.  Mr.  President,  do  I  understand  the  Senator 
to  hold  that  a  mere  record  of  this  mortgage  in  the  record  offices  of 
Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica  amounts  to  an  abandonment  of  the  prohi 
bition  contained  in  the  concessions  against  transferring  any  of  the 
power  or  other  rights  in  this  canal  to  a  foreign  Government? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  do  not  know  what  the  Senator  understands,  but 
I  did  not  make  that  statement.  I  repeat.  If  Nicaragua  and  Costa 


256  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Rica  shall  by  their  explicit  official  acts  authorize  the  recording  of 
thesq  mortgages  as  provided  by  section  4  of  the  bill  —  for  that  section 
declares  that  the  mortgage  shall  be  recorded  in  offices  to  be  designated 
by  those  Republics  —  and  if  those  nations  accept  the  stock  issued 
under  this  bill  as  specified  in  section  7  thereof,  I  believe  that  such 
conduct  would,  in  the  case  of  individuals,  amount  to  a  waiver;  and 
hence  I  assert  that  we  will  be  authorized  to  insist  upon  that  principle 
whenever  and  if  ever  we  have  occasion  to  have  recourse  to  the  mort 
gage.  It  is  true,  no  doubt,  that  if  after  this  bill  becomes  a  law 
Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica  decline  to  accept  the  conditions  tendered, 
the  result  will  not  be  different  than  that  which  must  follow  the  failure 
of  the  promoters  to  acquiesce. 

I  do  not  pretend  that  the  mere  passage  of  this  measure  will  pro 
duce  a  complete  and  effective  scheme.  Something  material  remains 
to  be  done.  But  I  do  not  anticipate  any  serious  difficulty.  I  think 
the  President  of  the  United  States  will  never  be  called  upon  to  suspend 
payment,  and  that  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica  will  gladly  agree  to  every 
condition  which  we  may  deem  prudent.  Those  who  think  that  insur 
mountable  obstacles  will  hereafter  be  encountered  will  properly  oppose 
the  bill,  and  if  I  deemed  it  likely  that  Nicaragua  or  Costa  Rica  would 
earnestly  protest  I  might  not  adhere  to  my  present  opinion. 

Mr.  CAFFERY.     Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Does  the  Senator  from  Califor 
nia  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Louisiana? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  CAFFERY.  I  do  not  understand  the  Senator.  There  is  in 
the  concession,  as  the  Senator  is  perfectly  aware,  a  prohibition  against 
the  alienation  to  a  foreign  power  of  these  concessions.  Now,  what  I 
want  to  know  of  the  Senator  is  this :  The  mortgage  being  granted  to 
secure  the  payment  of  those  bonds,  the  United  States  having  paid 
and  thereby  become  subrogated  to  the  rights  of  the  holders  of  the 
bonds,  assuming  then  to  execute  the  mortgage  of  itself,  could  the 
United  States  under  the  foreclosure  of  the  mortgage  purchase  the 
further  concessions  which  are  prohibited  to  be  ceded  to  a  foreign 
country  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  answer  the  question  by  repeating  that  if  it  be 
true  that  there  is  such  a  prohibition  it  is  one  which  Nicaragua  and 
Costa  Rica  may  waive.  I  have  said,  and  I  suppose  said  plainly,  that 
if  those  Governments  accept  the  stock  issued  them  under  the  pro 
visions  of  this  bill,  and  if  they  officially  authorize  the  mortgage  to  be 
recorded,  as  they  must  do  if  they  acquiesce  in  this  scheme,  that  these 
acts  justify  the  United  States  in  insisting-  that  there  has  been  an 
abandonment  of  the  prohibitive  features  of  the  concessions  quoted.  I 
have  also  stated  that  I  do  not  rest  my  support  of  this  bill  upon  the 
possible  transfer  to  the  United  States  of  the  concessions  enjoyed  by 
the  Maritime  Company,  but  that  our  interest  in  the  corporation  itself, 
our  ownership  of  the  stock,  the  title  to  which  must  vest  in  us,  is  suffi 
cient  to  justify  us  as  a  conservative  people  in  giving  our  credit.  The 
great  object  in  view,  the  vast  and  desirable  consequences  which  must 
attend  the  completion  of  the  project  which  we  have  been  discussing, 
the  opening  of  the  canal  to  the  commerce  of  the  world  and  to  the 
business  of  this  Government,  the  fact  that  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  above  all  people  on  the  globe  will  most  largely  enjoy  the  trade 
benefits  of  hastened  and  cheapened  transportation,  impel  me  to  the 
conclusion  that  I  can  render  no  more  patriotic  service  to  the  country 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  257 

than  to  insist  upon  affirmative  action  now.  As  I  have  said,  the  trans 
fer  of  the  stock  I  regard  as  vital. 

Mr.  CAFFERY.     Will  the  Senator  from  California  permit  me? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  CAFFERY.  I  ask  the  Senator  whether,  in  his  opinion,  the 
acceptance  of  the  stock  by  Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica  in  the  distribu 
tion  of  the  stock  under  the  pending  bill  would  work  any  denial  of  the 
right  of  Nicaragua  to  contend  that  the  concessions  were  inalienable  to 
a  foreign  power. 

Mr.  WHITE.     Yes;  when  Nicaragua 

Mr.  CAFFERY.  If  so,  under  what  principle  does  the  Senator 
so  contend? 

Mr.  WHITE.  If  I  enter  into  a  contract  with  the  distinguished 
Senator,  and  if  subsequent  proceedings  are  had  between  us,  and  if  we 
have  dealings  regarding  the  same  matter  which  imply  a  modification 
of  some  provision  of  the  agreement  which  was  made  in  his  interest, 
and  if  he  accepts  what  to  him  are  benefits,  and  if  I  insist  upon  corre 
sponding  rights  necessarily  connected  with  the  advantages  conferred 
upon  him,  he  is  foreclosed  from  insisting  upon  the  letter  of  the  original 
contract  and  from  denying  my  profits  under  the  altered  engagement, 
while  retaining  those  which  he  has  appropriated;  and  if,  in  this 
instance,  the  Governments  of  Costa  Rica  and  Nicaragua  not  only 
accept  the  stock  issued  under  this  bill  and  tendered  with  all  the  limi 
tations  and  obligations  of  this  bill  —  a  bill  which  recites  the  existence 
of  the  very  power  which  the  Senator  denies  —  and  if  in  addition  both 
Republics  shall,  as  provided  in  the  act,  designate  the  office  wherein 
these  mortgages  shall  be  made  of  record ;  and  if  the  United  States 
thereupon  proceeds  to  expend  money  as  indicated,  then  I  assert  that 
such  acceptance  of  stock,  such  recording  of  the  mortgage,  are  in  con 
flict  with  the  limitations  of  the  concessions  as  contended  for  by  the 
Senator,  and  that  thereafter  neither  Republic  can  be  honestly  per 
mitted  to  insist  that  the  stock  which  it  received  was  not  issued  under 
the  bill,  and  that  the  mortgage  which  it  authorized  to  be  made  of 
record  was  of  no  effect.  As  between  private  parties,  such  conduct 
would  constitute  a  complete  estoppel. 

Mr.  President,  for  years  this  magnificent  opportunity  has  been 
tendered  to  the  enterprise  of  the  human  race.  It  seems  as  if  nature 
had  proffered  to  us  especially  an  opportunity  to  perform  a  labor  worthy 
of  our  wealth  and  civilization  and  of  inestimable  advantage  to  the 
world.  When  we  reflect  that  a  6oo-ton  steamer  may  now  in  the  rainy 
season  pass  up  the  river  San  Juan  and  to  the  lake  and  sail  within 
twelve  and  one-half  miles  of  the  Pacific  Coast,  we  see  how  much  has 
been  done  in  advance  toward  the'  bringing  about  of  the  end  which  we 
have  in  view.  Not  only  will  that  portion  of  the  United  States  which 
I  in  part  particularly  represent  here  vastly  profit,  not  only  will  the 
Pacific  Slope  greatly  improve  because  of  increased  commerce,  but 
New  Orleans  and  the  great  metropolis  of  New  York,  and  every  town 
upon  our  coast  will  be  permanently  stimulated.  Narrow  and  restricted 
and  unpatriotic  is  the  theory  which  suggests  that  that  which  will 
build  up  one  portion  of  the  nation  will  not  affect  any  other  part.  The 
active,  intelligent  population  upon  the  seaboard  can  not  greatly  pros 
per  or  seriously  suffer  without  a  corresponding  sensation  in  the  inte 
rior.  That  which  affects  the  nation's  pulse  in  any  spot  of  the  great 
body  politic  must  send  a  thrill  through  the  whole  of  her  mighty  form. 
'Mr.  Monroe  advanced  a  doctrine  upon  which  Americans  have 


258  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

been  proud  to  stand,  and  which,  though  not  strictly  adhered  to,  will 
never  be  repudiated  by  our  people.  How  consonant  to  this  precept 
will  be  our  conduct  if  we  shall  bring  about  the  building  of  the  Nica 
ragua  Canal.  How  much  easier  then  to  fully  maintain  our  avowed 
principles.  All  here  know  that  I  do  not  favor  the  extension  of  our 
dominion  to  remote  lands,  and  I  do  not  believe  in  interfering  with  for 
eign  Governments,  and  that,  in  my  judgment,  we  have  enough  to  attend 
to  within  our  own  limits  in  a  governmental  sense;  but  the  advocacy 
of  this  doctrine  can  not  prevent  or  forbid  our  active  co-operation  in 
all  that  will  develop  our  trade,  assist  in  protecting  us  from  foreign 
foes,  and  make  easier,  more  profitable,  and  in  some  respects  for  the 
first  time  possible,  free  and  advantageous  commerce  among  States 
widely  separated. 

Nicaragua  and  Costa  Rica,  sister  Republics,  are  not  able  to  pro 
ceed  unaided.  Their  resources  are  inadequate.  In  a  friendly  spirit 
they  practically  invite  us  to  assist.  They  are  willing  to  make  us  the 
chief  beneficiaries.  We  assume  no  entangling  alliances;  no  interna 
tional  obligations  of  momentous  difficulty  are  cast  upon  us.  As  indi 
viduals  have  an  opportunity  to  accomplish  great  things  for  themselves, 
but  seldom  in  a  lifetime,  so  it  may  happen  that  the  United  States,  if  it 
ignores  the  present  opportunity,  will  not,  perhaps,  be  soon  again 
invited. 

Speaking  from  the  standpoint  of  an  American,  regardless  of 
locality  and  having  in  view  the  needs  of  the  future,  I  trust  that  no 
further  delay  will  attend  the  building  of  the  Nicaragua  Canal  as  the 
result  of  the  act  of  this  Government. 


WAR  IN  CUBA 


SPEECH  DELIVERED 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
Wednesday  and  Thursday,  February  26  and  27,  1896. 

The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  concurrent  resolution  reported 
from  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  relative  to  the  war  in  Cuba — 

Mr.  WHITE  said: 

Mr.  PRESIDENT:  On  the  24th  of  the  present  month  I  offered  a 
substitute  for  the  various  resolutions  reported  to  the  Senate  by  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  with  reference  to  Cuban  affairs.  I 
ask  that  the  substitute  be  read. 

The  VICE-PRESIDENT.     The  proposed  substitute  will  be  read. 

The  SECRETARY  read  the  substitute  submitted  by  Mr.  WHITE,  as 
follows : 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  (the  House  of  Representatives  concurring),  That 
the  Senate  contemplates  with  solicitude  and  profound  regret  the  sufferings  and 
destruction  accompanying  the  civil  conflict  now  in  progress  in  Cuba.  While 
the  United  States  have  not  interfered  and  will  not,  unless  their  vital  inter 
ests  so  demand,  interfere  with  existing  colonies  and  dependencies  of  any  Euro 
pean  Government  on  this  hemisphere,  nevertheless  our  people  have  never  dis 
guised  and  do  not  now  conceal  their  sympathy  for  all  those  who  struggle 
patriotically,  as  do  the  Cubans  now  in  revolt,  to  exercise,  maintain,  and  pre 
serve  the  right  of  self-government.  Nor  can  we  ignore  our  exceptional  and 
close  relations  to  Cuba  by  reason  of  geographical  proximity  and  our  conse 
quent  grave  interest  in  all  questions  affecting  the  control  or  well-being  of 
that  island.  We  trust  that  the  executive  department,  of  whose  investigation 
and  care  our  diplomatic  relations  have  been  committed,  will  at  as  early  a 
date  as  the  facts  will  warrant  recognize  the  belligerency  of  those  who  are 
maintaining  themselves  in  Cuba  in  armed  opposition  to  Spain,  and  that  the 
influence  and  offices  of  the  United  States  may  be  prudently,  peacefully,  and 
effectively  exerted  to  the  end  that  Cuba  may  be  enabled  to  establish  a  per 
manent  government  of  her  own  choice. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  President,  I  presume  that  there  is  no  one 
entitled  to  a  seat  in  this  Chamber  who  does  not  sympathize  with  the 
struggling  patriots  in  Cuba.  I  assume  that  there  is  no  Senator  who 
would  not  rejoice  could  he  witness  the  establishment  by  the  people 
of  that  island  of  a  government  of  their  own  choice.  But  while  hold 
ing  these  views  and  experiencing  these  sympathies  it  is  important  that 
we  should  proceed  in  an  orderly  manner  and  in  accordance  not  only 
with  the  customs  and  usages  of  this  and  other  enlightened  nations, 
but  also  in  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  the  organic  law  under 
which  we  all  claim  to  act. 

The  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  has  reported  a  concurrent 
resolution  which  it  is  expected  will  receive  the  support  of  the  Senate 
and  House.  In  the  first  place,  if  we  are  to  approach  this  subject 
through  any  resolution  designed  to  be  of  itself  effective  as  a  declara 
tion  of  belligerency,  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  Constitution  requires 

259 


260  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

such  resolution  to  be  joint.  Within  a  few  days  a  discussion  arose  here 
with  reference  to  a  resolution  designed  to  affect  the  thirteenth  section 
of  the  last  river  and  harbor  act,  and  it  was  argued  with  much  force 
by  several  Senators  of  distinguished  ability  that  as  that  section  had 
relation  merely  to  matters  of  departmental  procedure  and  did  not  arise 
under  the  Constitution,  therefore  it  was  unnecessary  that  a  resolution 
passed  for  the  purpose  of  suspending  the  operation  of  that  provision 
should  be  presented  to  the  President  or  be  considered  by  him.  But 
Senators  holding  this  view  stated  that  whenever  Congress  seeks  to 
exercise  constitutional  powers  by  means  of  a  resolution  receiving  the 
assent  of  both  Houses,  then  the  same  will  not  be  valid  unless  sub 
mitted  after  adoption,  as  in  the  case  of  a  bill,  to  the  President.  Indeed, 
it  is  difficult  to  read  section  7  of  Article  I  without  reaching*  that 
result.  Therefore,  the  concurrent  resolutions  now  under  advisement 
will,  if  passed  and  not  submitted  to  the  Executive,  be  of  no  legal  force, 
and  can  only  amount  to  an  expression  of  the  sentiments  and  opinions 
of  the  Senate  and  House: 

Every  order,  resolution,  or  vote  to  which  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate 
and  House  of  Representatives  may  be  necessary  (except  on  a  question  of 
adjournment)  shall  be  presented  to  the  President  of  the  United  States;  and 
before  the  same  shall  take  effect,  shall  be  approved  by  him,  or  being  disap 
proved  by  him,  shall  be  repassed,  by  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  and  House  of 
Representatives,  according  to  the  rules  and  limitations  prescribed  in  the  case 
of  a  bill. 

As  stated  by  the  Senator  from  Alabama  [Mr.  MORGAN]  yester 
day,  there  is  no  Congressional  enactment  affecting  this  subject,  and 
the  committee  resolution  and  that  which  I  offered  do  not  arise  under 
procedure  prescribed  by  any  statute.  If,  therefore,  the  organic  limita 
tion  of  the  powers  of  Congress  which  I  have  repeated  does  not  relate, 
among  other  things,  to  a  resolution  declaring  belligerency  or  pro 
claiming  independence,  I  can  not  find  any  subject  of  moment  to  which 
the  restrictive  language  of  that  provision  can  be  held  applicable. 
Hence,  if  we  are  to  make  a  declaration  announcing  belligerency,  the 
resolution  can  have  no  effect  unless  it  is  presented  to  the  President. 
For  reasons  which  I  shall  endeavor  to  suggest,  I  am  doubtful  whether 
such  a  resolution  can  have  any  effect  unless  actually  approved  by  the 
Executive.  True  it  is  immaterial  whether  it  be  styled  concurrent  or 
joint,  but  we  proceed  here  upon  the  theory  that  no  resolution  called 
concurrent  is  presented  to  the  President.  I  regret  that  I  am  unable 
to  elaborate  upon  this  interesting  topic.  I  am  constrained  to  deal 
with  the  subject  as  briefly  as  possible.  If  it1  is  sought  to  make  a  valid 
declaration  of  belligerency,  the  resolution  must  be  passed  under  the 
Constitution  and  should  be  joint  and  presented  to  the  President. 

But,  Mr.  President,  there  is  not  only  a  question  of  policy  involved 
as  well  as  a  matter  of  duty  in  the  form  of  this  declaration ;  there  is 
likewise  an  issue  as  to  our  authority.  I  feel  confident  that  the  power 
does  not  reside  in  the  House  of  Congress,  independent  of  the  Presi 
dent,  to  declare  belligerency.  The  Senator  from  Alabama  [Mr. 
MORGAN]  stated  yesterday  in  discussing  this  phase  of  the  subject  as 
follows : 

I  dispute  the  power  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  of  his  own 
motion  and  without  the  assistance  of  Congress,  to  recognize  belligerency 
between  'vtwo  foreign  Governments,  because  the  President  of  the  United 
States  has  no  right  by  his  proclamation  to  change  the  commercial  and  other 
relations  between  the  people  of  this  country  and  the  people  of  a  foreign 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  261 

country.  But  being  the  representative  of  the  United  States  in  virtue  of  its 
sovereignty  as  affects  foreign  countries,  he  has  the  right  to  recognize  the 
independence  of  a  foreign  country,  because  that  recognition  has  no  effect 
upon  our  own  people.  It  does  not  change  our  relation  to  that  country  in 
the  slightest  degree.  It  does  not  compel  us  to  pursue  commerce  under  laws 
which  regulate  war  instead  of  laws  which  regulate  peace. 

Then  I  addressed  the  following  inquiry  to  the  distinguished 
Senator : 

Mr.  WHITE.  Will  the  Senator  from  Delaware  [Mr.  GRAY]  permit  me  to 
ask  the  Senator  from  Alabama  [Mr.  MORGAN]  a  question,  if  the  Senator  from 
Alabama  will  allow  me?  Do  I  understand  the  Senator  from  Alabama  to  deny 
the  power  of  the  President,  without  the  concurrence  of  Congress,  to  recog 
nize  the  belligerency  or  to  issue  an  effective  proclamation  of  belligerency  as 
to  the  contending  parties? 

To  this  inquiry  the  Senator  from  Alabama  replied  thus : 
Mr.  MORGAN.    I  do. 

Mr.  President,  in  the  same  discussion,  construing  somewhat 
similar  provisions  of  the  Constitution  supposed  to  be  more  or  less 
related  to  this  topic,  the  distinguished  Senator  also  said  that  in  his 
opinion  Congress  had  power  to  declare  war  without  reference  to 
Presidential  action  or  consultation  —  that  the  resolution,  or  whatever 
it  might  be,  so  declaring  need  not  go  to  the  Executive,  and  he  conceded 
that  the  various  subdivisions  of  section  8  of  Article  I  of  the  Constitu 
tion  bore  the  same  relation,  so  far  as  the  wording  is  concerned,  to  the 
first  part  of  that  section ;  but  he  argued  that  the  eleventh  subdivision, 
granting  power  to  declare  war,  etc.,  meant  that  Congress,  without 
reference  to  the  Executive,  might  effectively  proceed. 

The  first  section  of  Article  I  of  the  Constitution  declares: 

All  legislative  powers  herein  granted  shall  be  vested  in  a  Congress  of  the 
United  States,  which  shall  consist  of  a  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives. 

Thus  legislative  power  is  vested  in  Congress,  and  yet.no  one  pre 
tends  that  an  ordinary  bill  must  not  receive  the  Presidential  signature. 
I  can  not  conceive  of  any  method  of  reading  section  8  of  Article  I 
which  will  authorize  the  conclusion  that  any  peculiar  rule  applies  to 
Executive  functions  under  subdivision  n.  The  legislative  preroga 
tive  is  not  greater,  as  far  as  words  go,  under  that  subdivision  than  in 
the  instances  disclosed  by  many  other  grants  contained  in  that 
important  section.  It  is  conceded  that  no  bill  with  reference  to  post- 
offices  and  post-roads,  providing  and  maintaining  a  navy,  raising  and 
supporting  armies,  etc.,  can  be  made  effectual  without  the  usual  Execu 
tive  signature,  or  non-action,  or  the  repassing  of  the  measure  over  the 
veto  by  the  constitutional  two-thirds  vote.  To  announce  any  other 
rule  with  respect  to  the  power  to  declare  war  or  concerning  any  other 
part  of  the  constitutional  delegation  of  authority,  would  be  to  disre 
gard  without  excuse  the  obvious  meaning  of  language  and  to  ignore 
all  recognized  construction. 

But,  Mr.  President,  I  affirm  that  the  question  of  the  recognition 
of  the  existence  of  a  revolutionary  government  is  vested  in  the  Execu 
tive.  Whether  this  power  is  exclusive  it  is  unnecessary  to  decide, 
though  I  shall  allude  incidentally  to  this  phase.  When  the  Senator 
from  Alabama  stated  that  he  denied  the  power  of  the  Executive, 
unaided  by  Congressional  action,  to  recognize  belligerency,  it  seems  to 
me  that  his  statement  was  unsupported  by  precedent  or  reason.  I  can 


262  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

not  find  any  other  authority  for  it.  True,  Mr.  President,  a  joint  reso 
lution,  signed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  recognizing 
belligerency,  would  operate,  if  not  by  virtue  of  the  action  of  Congress, 
certainly  so  because  it  was  approved  by  the  Executive.  I  do  not  find 
it  necessary  to  contend  that  Congress  can  not  pass  a  bill  recognizing 
belligerency  over  the  veto  of  the  Executive.  I  can  find  no  such 
instance,  however.  I  trust  that  no  conflict  of  this  nature  will  ever 
arise,  and  until  occasion  requires  I  prefer  to  reserve  my  opinion  as  to 
the  legality  of  such  procedure.  The  very  case  from  which  the  learned 
Senator  from  Alabama  read,  the  Prize  Cases,  it  seems  to  me,  entirely 
overthrows  his  contention  in  this  regard.  I  call  attention  to  the  fol 
lowing  phraseology,  reading  from  part  of  the  opinion  to  which  the 
learned  Senator  did  not  advert.  I  quote  from  2  Black,  page  670: 

Whether  the  President  in  fulfilling  his  duties  as  commander-in-chief  in  sup 
pressing  an  insurrection,  has  met  with  such  armed  hostile  resistance  and  a 
civil  war  of  such  alarming  proportions  as  will  compel  him  to  accord  to  them 
the  character  of  belligerents  is  a  question  to  be  decided  by  him,  and  this 
court  must  be  governed  by  the  decisions  and  acts  of  the  political  department 
of  the  Government  to  which  this  power  was  intrusted.  He  must  determine 
Kvhat  degree  of  force  the  crisis  demands. 

It  must  be  observed  that  the  unaided  effectiveness  of  the  Execu 
tive  act  was  here  conceded  to  be  proper  exercise  of  power  by  the 
political  department  of  the  Government,  and  Congress  in  this  instance 
was  not  regarded  as  constituting  a  portion  of  "  the  political  depart 
ment." 

From  the  case  of  Kennett  et  al.  vs.  Chambers,  a  decision  by  Chief 
Justice  Taney,  and  reported  in  14  Howard,  pages  50  and  51,  I  read: 

It  is  not  necessary,  in  the  case  before  us,  to  decide  how  far  the  judicial  tri 
bunal  of  the  United  States  would  enforce  a  contract  like  this,  when  two 
States  acknowledged  to  be  independent  were  at  war  and  this  country  neu 
tral.  It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  argument  to  say  that  the  question  whether 
Texas  had  or  had  not  at  that  time  become  an  independent  State  was  a  ques 
tion  for  that  department  of  our  Government  exclusively  which  is  charged 
with  our  foreign  relations.  And  until  the  period  when  that  department  recog 
nized  it  as  an  independent  State  the  judicial  tribunals  of  the  country  were 
bound  to  consider  the  old  order  of  things  as  having  continued,  and  to  regard 
Texas  as  a  part  of  the  Mexican  territory. 

I  understand  the  Senator  from  Alabama  to  claim  that  while  the 
President  of  the  United  States  is  vested  with  exclusive  jurisdiction  to 
acknowledge  the  independence  of  a  country,  that  that  officer  has  not 
the  same  jurisdiction  as  to  belligerency. 

What  is  the  effect  of  a  declaration  of  belligerency?  Is  it  any 
thing,  when  properly  made,  to  which  a  nation  has  a  right  to  take 
exception  ?  Manifestly  not.  In  such  an  instance  we  assert  neutrality. 
The  President  of  the  United  States  issues  his  proclamation  declaring 
that  this  country  will  stand  hands  off;  that  we  will  not  interfere.  It 
is  not  a  proclamation  of  war ;  it  is  a  proclamation  of  peace ;  it  is  not 
an  announcement  of  interference;  it  is  an  announcement  of  non-inter 
ference  ;  it  is  not  opening  ourselves  to  the  charge  that  we  are  attempt 
ing  to  injure  a  friendly  nation,  but  it  means  that  we  have  concluded 
that  there  are  contending  parties  whose  armed  conflict  is  sufficiently 
important  to  be  dignified  by  the  term  war,  and  that  we  will  remain 
impartial  spectators.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  recognition  of  the  inde 
pendence  of  a  revolutionary  country  is  often  the  subject  of  vigorous 
protest. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  263 

It  passes  without  saying  that  no  nation  is  rudely  dismembered 
save  after  vigorous  contest  and  exhaustive  effort.  The  history  of 
our  country  demonstrates  that  we  have  never  recognized  the  inde 
pendence  of  a  state  which  has  successfully  revolted  without  subjecting 
ourselves  to  the  criticisms  of  the  mother  country.  There  is  much 
more  danger,  much  more  probability  of  conflict  with  a  foreign  power 
in  consequence  of  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of  a  revolted 
government  than  when  we  merely  recognize  belligerency.  No  nation 
can  be  expected  to  contemplate  with  satisfaction  the  loss  of  her  pos 
sessions,  and,  unlike  the  able  Senator  from  Alabama,  I  regard  the 
power  to  recognize  independence,  which  he  concedes  to  be  in  the 
Executive,  as  much  more  important  than  the  authority  to  recognize 
belligerency,  which  he  denies  to  the  Executive.  Said  Secretary  Sew- 
ard  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Adams,  our  minister  to  England  (i  Messages 
and  Documents,  1861-62,  page  79)  : 

To  recognize  the  independence  of  a  new  state,  and  so  favor,  possibly  deter 
mine,  its  admission  into  the  family  of  nations,  is  the  highest  possible  exercise 
of  sovereign  power,  because  it  affects  in  every  case  the  welfare  of  two  nations^ 
and  often  the  peace  of  the  world. 

The  precedents  showing  Executive  assertion  of  the  power  to 
recognize  belligerency  as  well  as  independence  are  many. 

On  December  9,  1891,  while  Mr.  Harrison  occupied  the  Execu 
tive  chair,  he  sent  to  this  Chamber  a  message  containing  the  following : 

The  civil  war  in  Chile,  which  began  in  January  last,  was  continued,  but 
fortunately  with  infrequent  and  not  important  armed  collisions,  until  August 
28,  when  the  Congressional  forces  landed  near  Valparaiso  and,  after  a  bloody 
engagement,  captured  that  city.  President  Balmaceda  at  once  recognized 
that  his  cause  was  lost,  and  a  Provisional  Government  was  speedily  estab 
lished  by  the  victorious  party.  Our  minister  was  promptly  directed  to  rec 
ognize  and  put  himself  in  communication  with  this  Government  so  soon  as  it 
should  have  established  its  de  facto  character,  which  was  done. 

He  also  said  (and  this  is  directly  in  point)  : 

During  the  pendency  of  this  civil  contest  frequent  indirect  appeals  were 
made  to  this  Government  to  extend  belligerent  rights  to  the  insurgents  and 
to  give  audience  to  their  representatives.  This  was  declined,  and  that  policy 
was  pursued  throughout  which  this  Government,  when  wrenched  by  civil 
war,  so  strenuously  insisted  upon  on  the  part  of  European  nations. 

Here  was  a  manifest  assertion  of  the  power  to  determine  whether 
or  not  belligerent  rights  should  be  accorded,  a  decision  which  in  that 
instance  was,  in  my  opinion,  most  unwisely  made. 

I  can  not  understand  the  reasoning  which  leads  to  the  denial  of 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Executive,  through  the  State  Department,  to 
declare  neutrality,  and  consequently  to  affirm  at  least  belligerency. 
No  one  should  doubt  that  if  the  President  of  the  United  States  had  in 
the  Chilean  case,  or  in  that  now  before  us,  announced  that  a  state  of 
public  war  existed,  and  had  issued  the  ordinary  proclamation  of  non 
interference,  our  judicial  tribunals  would  have  been  compelled  to  fol 
low  the  Executive  declaration.  There  are  not  one  or  two  but 
numerous  decisions  referring  not  only  to  Executive  right  to  proclaim 
independence,  but  also  to  announce  belligerency.  Chief  Justice 
Marshall's  views  in  this  direction  are  clearly  stated  in  United  States 
vs.  Hutchings,  2  Wheeler's  Criminal  Cases,  page  546.  The  distinc 
tion  referred  to  by  the  Senator  from  Alabama  has  not  been  heretofore 
urged.  The  Prize  Cases,  already  cited,  contain  ample  justification  for 


264  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

my  claim.  It  was  there  held  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States  that  when  Mr.  Lincoln  at  the  opening  of  our  civil  war  declared 
the  blockade,  he  thereby  recognized  the  existence  of  a  condition  of 
public  war  and  the  consequent  presence  of  belligerents.  The  Supreme 
Court  not  only  held  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  had  power 
to  recognize  a  belligerent,  but  they  intimated  that  he  did  so  even 
though  he  did  not  intend  that  his  proclamation  should  be  so  construed. 
It  was  decided  that  the  Executive  announcement  of  a  blockade  in 
effect  conceded  that  the  South  was  at  war  with  the  North.  I  cite  the 
following  from  the  Prize  Cases  opinion: 

The  proclamation  of  blockade  is  itself  official  and  conclusive  evidence  to 
the  court  that  a  state  of  war  existed  which  demanded  and  authorized  a 
recourse  to  such  measure  under  the  circumstances  peculiar  to  the  case. 

Whenever  there  is  war  there  are  belligerents.  An  admission  of 
war  is  a  concession  of  belligerency.  I  quote  again  from  the  Prize 
Cases : 

The  condition  of  neutrality  can  not  exist  unless  there  be  two  belligerent 
parties.  In  the  case  of  the  Santissima  Trinidad,  7  Wheaton,  337,  this  court 
say :  "  The  Government  of  the  United  States  has  recognized  the  existence  of 
a  civil  war  between  Spain  and  her  colonies,  and  has  avowed  her  determina 
tion  to  remain  neutral  between  the  parties.  Each  party  is,  therefore,  deemed 
by  us  a  belligerent  nation,  having,  so  far  as  concerns  us,  the  sovereign  rights 
of  war." 

In  the  minority  report  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations, 
and  in  several  addresses  here  made,  I  find  criticisms  of  the  course  of 
Spain  in  acknowledging  the  belligerency  of  the  Southern  States.  But 
if  Spain  were  wrong  we  will  not  therefore  be  justified  in  committing 
a  similar  error.  But  she  was  not  guilty  of  an  impropriety.  The 
fact  is,  as  already  shown,  that  Mr.  Lincoln  recognized  the  belligerency 
of  the  Confederacy  before  similar  action  had  been  taken  by  England, 
France,  or  Spain.  It  is  universally  held,  by  domestic  as  well  as  for 
eign  writers  on  international  law,  that  we  had  no  rational  ground  of 
objection  to  the  conduct  of  European  powers  concerning  the  recogni 
tion  of  the  Confederate  States.  (Glenn's  International  Law,  pages 
29>  30;  Woolsey's  id.,  sixth  edition,  section  41 ;  Pomeroy's  id.  (Wool- 
sey's  edition),  page  290;  Ford  vs.  Surget,  97  U.  S.  594,  and  the  Prize 
Cases,  2  Black,  page  670.)  An  English  publicist  (Hall's  International 
Law,  page  39)  fully  sustains  this  position. 

So  here  is  a  case  not  only  settling  the  power  of  the  Executive  to 
recognize  belligerency,  but  deciding,  as  I  have  said,  that  he  exercised 
that  power  without  even  intending  the  result  legally  deducible  there 
from. 

In  the  case  of  the  Ambrose  Light,  decided  by  Judge  Brown  in 
New  York,  and  reported  in  25  Federal  Reporter,  it  was  held  that 
President  Cleveland  had  recognized  the  belligerency  of  Colombia 
because  of  certain  orders  officially  made  by  him,  though  not  with  that 
design.  The  State  Department  vigorously  combated  this  conclusion, 
and  claimed  that  there  had  been  no  recognition ;  but  everyone  admitted 
the  power  of  the  Executive,  the  sole  question  being  whether  the 
authority  had  been  exercised..  I  cite  this  case  to  show  that  our  courts 
have  held  that  recognition  is  not  only  a  subject  of  a  Presidential  juris 
diction,  but  may  even  be  accomplished  unintentionally  by  that  depart 
ment. 

The  Ambrose  Light  decision  is  lengthy,  and  I  do  not  propose  to 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  265 

do  more  than  to  shortly  refer  to  it.  I  shall  do  so  again  in  connection 
with  another  topic.  The  subject  is  discussed  by  Judge  Brown  with 
great  fullness,  and  the  conclusion  is  reached  that  the  power  rests  in 
the  Executive.  Various  expressions  have  been  made  by  different 
jurists  in  our  own  country  upon  this  subject,  and  it  must  be  admitted 
that  it  has  not  been  explicitly  decided  in  so  many  words  that  Con 
gress,  without  the  President,  can  not  recognize  —  though  I  think 
such  inference  reasonably  clear  —  but  it  is  patent  that  the  Executive 
may  recognize  without  the  aid  of  Congress.  The  effect  of  this  con 
clusion  I  will  shortly  discuss. 

I  wish  at  this  point  to  note  several  additional  adjudications 
wherein  the  subject  of  recognition  of  belligerency  and  independence 
has  been  mentioned. 

In  the  Hornet,  2  Abbott,  U.  S.,  35,  a  case  tried  before  Judge 
Brooks  in  1870,  in  the  United  States  district  court  of  North  Carolina, 
the  phrase  "  Executive  power "  is  used. 

In  United  States  vs.  Baker,  5  Blatchford,  56,  and  United  States 
vs.  Jones,  137  U.  S.,  202,  we  find  legislative  and  executive  spoken  of; 
also  in  United  States  vs.  Palmer,  3  Wheaton,  610,  and  in  the  Neuva 
Anna,  6  Wheaton,  193.  In  Gelston  vs.  Hoyt,  3  Wheaton,  324,  the 
power  is  described  as  being  exercised  by  the  Government. 

In  the  Ambrose  Light,  25  Federal  Reporter,  409;  United  States 
vs.  Itata,  56  Id.,  505;  United  States  vs.  Trumbull,  48  Id.,  99,  it  is 
said  that  the  right  to  recognize  belligerency  rests  in  the  Executive. 

Kennett  vs.  Chambers,  14  Howard,  47,  is  instructive  upon  this 
subject,  and  contains  an  allusion  to  the  proceedings  of  this  Govern 
ment  regarding  the  acknowledgment  of  the  independence  of  Texas 
which  it  is  well  to  note. 

Mr.  Wharton,  in  his  very  able  International  Law  Digest,  which 
is  familiar  to  us  all,  quotes  a  number  of  authorities,  and,  as  showing 
his  own  view,  on  page  551  of  volume  I  he  heads  the  section  "  Such 
recognition  (i.  e.,  belligerency)  determinable  by  Executive." 

Passing  a  step  further,  permit  me  to  ask,  what  will  be  the  effect 
if  we  attempt  to  establish  the  rule  that  while  the  Executive  has  the 
power  to  recognize  without  Congressional  concurrence,  Congress  has 
similar  authority  to  act  without  the  Executive?  To  what  result 
must  this  finally  lead  us?  If  the  President,  without  Congressional 
assistance,  has  absolute  power  to  declare  neutrality,  thereby  conceding 
belligerency,  which,  as  I  say,  I  take  to  be  well  established,  and  if 
Congress  has  similar  absolute  power  over  the  same  subject-matter, 
we  then  have  two  independent  departments  of  the  Government,  each 
vested  with  the  unqualified  authority  to  render  the  same  final  judg 
ment.  What  the  'consequences  might  be  if  the  Executive  proclaimed 
belligerency  and  Congress  declared  the  circumstances  to  be  not  such 
as  to  warrant  the  proclamation  and  sought'  to  annul  it,  or  what  might 
be  the  consequences  if  Congress  passed  a  concurrent  resolution,  as 
proposed,  formally  recognizing  the  belligerency  of  the  Cuban  patriots, 
and  the  Executive  declined  to  act  upon  it,  holding  that  the  condition 
of  war  does  not  obtain,  are  serious  propositions. 

It  can  not  be  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  contemplated 
the  creation  of  such  clashing  authority.  If  the  distinguished  Senator 
from  Alabama  admits,  as  he  did  yesterday,  that  the  power  to  recog 
nize  the  independence  of  a  nation  is  vested  exclusively  in  the  Execu 
tive,  I  submit  that  it  follows  a  fortiori  that  the  power  to  recognize 
18 


266  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

belligerency  is  similarly  reposed.  If  the  Executive  may  recognize, 
as  has  been  the  practice  from  the  foundation  of  the  Republic,  I  incline 
to  believe  that  he;  alone  has  this  power.  The  clothing  of  each  depart 
ment  with  the  full  jurisdiction  to  decide  the  same  issue  is  to  invite 
confusion  and  beget  irreconcilable  disputation. 

Mr.  President,  it  is  not  now,  and  I  hope  never  will  be,  essential 
to  determine  this  question.  I  refer  to  it  because  I  do  not  care  to  be 
a  party  to  the  establishment  of  a  precedent  to  which  I  can  not  give 
my  assent.  I  wish  it  understood  that  any  resolution  for  which  I 
may  vote  touching  this  controversy  is  merely  the  expression  of 
opinion  which  I  do  not  conceive  to  have  the  force  of  law. 

Is  there  any  reason  to  suppose  that  the  Executive  will  not  act 
vigorously  when  the  proper  time  comes?  If  we  have  such  reason 
does  the  proposed  concurrent  resolution  better  the  situation  or 
remedy  the  anticipated  evil?  In  the  first  place,  there  is  at  this 
moment  no  proposition  here  which  purports  upon  its  face  to  abso 
lutely  recognize  belligerency,  and  I  do  not  think  it  wise  to  adopt 
such  a  resolution,  because  I  do  not  wish  to  wantonly  place  this  body 
in  seeming  or  actual  conflict  with  the  Executive. 

There  is  another  ground  which  appears  to  me  very  strong  in 
support  of  the  contention  that  the  recognition  power  is  lodged  in  the 
Executive.  There  is  before  the  Senate  a  document  which  was  read 
by  the  Senator  from  Alabama,  and  which  I  deem  quite  important. 
I  refer  to  House  Document  224  of  the  present  session.  I  read  a  few 
lines  for  purposes  of  illustration : 

No.    2699.]  CONSULATE-GENERAI,    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES, 

Havana,  January  7,  1896. 

Sir:  With  reference  to  the  proclamation  of  the  captain-general  of  the  2nd 
instant  declaring  a  state  of  war  to  exist  in  the  provinces  of  Havana  and  Pinar 
del  Rio,  copy  and  translation  of  which  accompanied  my  dispatch  No.  2695  °f 
the  4th  instant — 

At  this  point  I  find  a  note  stating  that  the  proclamation  men 
tioned  is  not  printed.  From  this  I  conclude  that  the  omitted  paper 
has  not  been  revealed  to  Congress.  No  one  appears  to  con 
trovert  this  supposition.  When  the  House  adopted  the  resolution 
calling  for  this  correspondence  it  did  so  in  the  following  phraseology : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  State  be  directed  to  communicate  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  if  not  inconsistent  with  the  public  interests,  copies 
of  all  correspondence  relating  to  affairs  in  Cuba  since  February  last. 

The  House  passed  the  usual  resolution  in  the  regular  form 
which  custom  authorizes.  Manifestly  information  has  been  with 
held  —  no  doubt  properly.  Time  out  of  mind,  if  I  may  use  that 
expression  with  reference  to  this  very  modern  Government,  it  has 
been  the  custom  to  withhold  information  the  disclosure  of  which 
the  Executive  deems  incompatible  with  public  interest.  The  docu 
ment  thus  legitimately  withheld  may  contain  essential  and  controlling 
facts  upon  this  subject.  That  it  is  important  would  seem  to  follow 
to  some  extent  from  the  very  circumstance  that  it  is  retained.  Has 
the  Executive  the  right  to  thus  deny  information?  Our  Chief  Magis 
trates  have  always  done  so,  pursuant  to  unchallenged  custom  and  in 
compliance  with  recognized  usage,  evidenced  by  many  hundred 
resolutions  calling  upon  the  Executive  for  diplomatic  information. 
The  President  is  not  directed;  he  is  merely  requested,  and  always 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  267 

with  the  qualification  which  I  have  noted.  The  Executive  right  to 
withhold  delicate  diplomatic  correspondence  is  incidental  to  the 
Presidential  office.  Can  it  be  that  the  Constitution  has  placed  upon 
Congress  the  burden  of  deciding  and  the  duty  to  determine  issues 
concerning  belligerent  or  other  relations  to  foreign  powers  and  has 
not  at  the  same  time  compelled  the  President  to  give  us  everything 
within  his  knowledge?  Can  it  be  that  we  are  to  pass  upon  a  part 
of  the  case  and  not  upon  the  whole?  Can  it  be  that  under  the  law 
we  are  deprived  of  material  evidence  and  yet  are  expected  to  render 
final  and  determinative  judgment  upon  an  imperfect  record  —  a 
fraction  of  the  aggregate  proof?  I  say  not.  The  President  has 
before  him  all  information.  He  reviews  a  complete  history.  Plainly, 
he  is  in  a  better  condition  to  judge  of  the  true  state  of  affairs  than 
are  we.  He  has  the  means  to  secure  all  relevant  information. 

Having  in  charge  the  diplomatic  relations  of  the  Government, 
he  is,  or  should  be,  better  advised  than  the  Senate  or  the  House  of 
Representatives  or  both. 

Mr.  President,  I  refer  to  this  controversy  not  because  of  its 
bearing  upon  this  isolated  case,  but  to  show  that  under  the  govern 
mental  scheme,  pursuant  to  which  we  are  acting,  it  is  improbable  that 
it  ever  was  the  intention  to  place  the  power  to  recognize  either 
belligerency  or  independence  in  such  a  condition  that  a  conflict  could 
arise  between  Congress  and  the  Executive  for  the  settlement  of 
which  no  adequate  remedy  is  provided. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Will  the  Senator  from  California  insist  or 
argue  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  in  his  discretion  may 
withhold  information  from  Congress,  and  then  when  he  withholds 
the  information  he  can  act  upon  it  himself  without  informing  us  of 
it,  and  conclusively  bind  this  Government  either  to  a  declaration  of 
belligerency  or  any  other  condition  he  wishes  to  impose  upon  us? 

Mr.  WHITE.  Not  so  broadly  as  that,  but  the  President  of  the 
United  States  has  the  power  to  withhold  information.  This  the 
Senator  does  not  deny.  From  the  beginning  of  this  Government  the 
Executive  has  recognized  or  refused  to  recognize  belligerency,  and 
his  determination  has  passed  unchallenged.  No  one  has  heretofore 
disputed  Executive  authority  to  accord  belligerency.  There  is  not  a 
case,  and  I  do  not  think  the  Senator  from  Alabama  can  discover  an 
instance,  where  the  belligerency  of  a  country  has  been  recognized 
by  Congress  despite  the  Executive. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Or  by  the  Executive  without  the  consent  of 
Congress. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Undoubtedly,  yes.  The  Senator  is  certainly  in 
error.  The  cases  are  uniformly  against  him.  The  Prize  Cases  and 
the  Ambrose  Light  ought  to  suffice.  In  the  latter  cause  it  was 
determined  that  Mr.  Cleveland  recognized  the  belligerency  of 
Colombia  by  indirection,  although  the  State  Department  claimed  he 
did  not  accord  such  recognition.  (13  Albany  L.  J.,  page  125.) 
During  the  efforts  of  the  South  American  Republics  to  gain  their 
freedom  the  President  recognized  belligerency  and  for  many  years 
thereafter  consistently  refused  to  acknowledge  the  independence  of 
the  revolted  territory. 

This  recognition  of  belligerency  was  always  executive.  Subse 
quently  Congress  ratified  Presidential  liberality,  but  such  action  was 
a  mere  affirmation  of  that  which  was  already  conclusive.  No  one 


268  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

ever  disputed  the  adequacy  of  Presidential  action.  The  ratification 
by  Congress  was  indirect.  So  in  the  case  of  Texas  and  Mexico. 
While  President  Jackson  refused  to  recognize  the  independence  of 
Texas  for  years,  still  belligerency  was  recognized  openly  and  clearly 
by  the  act  of  the  Executive,  and  if  the  Senator  from  Alabama  will 
peruse  the  opinion  of  Attorney-General  Butler,  reported  3  Opinions 
of  the  Attorneys-General,  page  120,  he  will  find  an  announcement 
which  plainly  supports  my  argument. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Before  the  Senator  from  California  proceeds, 
I  wish  to  call  his  attention  to  a  case  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Does  the  Senator  from  Califor 
nia  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Alabama? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  call  the  Senator's  attention  to  a  case  decided 
by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  upon  the  first  proposition 
the  Senator  has  announced,  that  every  concurrent  or  joint  resolution 
must  be  sent  to  the  President,  that  the  Constitution  on  that  subject 
is  mandatory,  and  that  a  resolution  can  not  become  operative  as  a  law 
unless  it  is  sent  to  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Such  a  resolution  as  that  pending  here  now,  if 
the  Senator  will  pardon  me  —  a  resolution  under  the  Constitution 
and  not  dependent  upon  mere  statutory  or  rule  regulation? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Yes.  Here  is  the  case  of  Hollingsworth  et  al. 
against  Virginia,  3  Dallas,  decided  by  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the 
court.  The  case  arose  upon  a  motion  to  discontinue  a  suit  pending 
in  a  Federal  court  after  the  amendment  of  the  Constitution  which 
forbids  the  States  to  be  sued  in  a  Federal  tribunal.  The  case  as 
stated  is  as  follows: 

The  decision  of  the  court  in  the  case  of  Chisholm,  executor,  vs.  Georgia 
(2  Dall.  Rep.,  419)  produced  a  proposition  in  Congress  for  amending  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States  according  to  the  following  terms: 

"  The  judicial  power  of  the  United  States  shall  not  be  construed  to  extend 
to  any  suit  in  law  or  equity,  commenced  or  prosecuted  against  one  of  the 
United  States  by  citizens  of  another  State,  or  by  citizens  or  subjects  of  any 
foreign  State." 

The  proposition  being  now  adopted  by  the  constitutional  number  of  States, 
Lee,  Attorney-General,  submitted  this  question  to  the  court:  Whether  the 
amendment  did  or  did  not  supersede  all  suits  depending,  as  well  as  prevent 
the  institution  of  new  suits  against  any  one  of  the  United  States  by  citizens 
of  another  State? 

Messrs.  Tilghman  and  Rawle  argued  in  the  negative,  and  they 
stated  this  proposition: 

The  amendment  has  not  been  proposed  in  the  form  prescribed  by  the  Con 
stitution,  and  therefore  it  is  void.  Upon  an  inspection  of  the  original  roll  it 
appears  that  the  amendment  was  never  submitted  to  the  President  for  his 
approbation.  The  Constitution  declares  'that  •>"  every  order,  resolution^  or 
vote  to  which  the  concurrence  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
may  be  necessary  (except  on  a  question  of  adjournment)  shall  be  presented 
to  the  President  of  the  United  States;  and  before  the  same  shall  take  effect 
shall  be  approved  by  him,  or,  being  disapproved  by  him,  shall  be  repassed 
by  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,"  etc. 

The  court,  Chase,  Justice,  in  commenting  upon  that  position,  in 
a  note  at  the  bottom  of  the  page  —  this  is  the  only  opinion  that  is 
delivered  upon  that  point  —  says : 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  269 

There  can  surely  be  no  necessity  to  answer  that  argument.  The  negative 
of  the  President  applies  only  to  the  ordinary  cases  of  legislation.  He  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  proposition  or  adoption  of  amendments  to  the  Con 
stitution. 

I  argue  from  that,  of  course,  that  a  joint  resolution  or  a  con 
current  resolution  of  the  two  Houses  proposing  an  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  embodies  about  as  important  a 
political  movement  as  can  be  conceived  of.  If  it  results  in  a  change 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  it  did  in  this  case,  nothing 
can  be  more  important,  and  yet  the  concurrent  resolution  referred  to 
in  that  case  never  was  submitted  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  The  original  rolls  show  that  it  was  submitted  to  him,  and 
yet  after  the  ratification  of  the  amendment  it  was  held  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  submit  the 
resolution  to  the  President  because  it  was  not  ordinary  legislation. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  may  be  wrong  about  it,  but  I  do  not  see  the 
slightest  relevancy  of  the  case  cited  by  the  Senator  from  Alabama. 
Article  V  of  the  Constitution  provides  the  method  of  amendment  and 
it  states : 

The  Congress,  whenever  two-thirds  of  both  Houses  shall  deem  it  necessary, 
shall  propose  amendments  to  this  Constitution,  or,  on  the  application  of 
the  legislatures  of  two-thirds  of  the  several  States,  shall  call  a  convention,  etc. 

There  is  a  special  method  provided  for  the  adoption  of  a  resolu 
tion  looking  to  that  end.  It  is  a  separate  article,  devoted  to  a  specific 
subject.  If  the  construction  of  the  Senator  from  Alabama  is  correct, 
the  section  of  the  Constitution  upon  which  I  rely  means  nothing. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  will  say  to  the  Senator  from  California  that 
that  very  point  was  raised  in  this  case. 

Mr.  WHITE.     Of  course  it  was. 

Mr.  MORGAN.     It  was  raised  in  this  case,  but  — 

Mr.  WHITE.     And  it  was  decided  by  the  court. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  But  the  court  rested  its  decision  entirely  on 
the  ground  that  it  was  not  ordinary  legislation,  and  that  the  President 
did  not  have  anything  to  do  with  it. 

Mr.  WHITE.  So  I  understand.  "  Ordinary  legislation  "  refers 
to  such  Congressional  action  as  is  here  proposed.  All  Congressional 
effort  under  section  8  is  plainly  ordinary  legislation.  There  is  no 
difficulty  about  that,  and  the  present  attempt  being  under  the  grant 
of  section  8,  must  be  solved  without  regard  to  the  peculiarities  of 
section  5.  I  referred  a  moment  ago  to  the  case  of  Texas.  I  find, 
25  Federal  Reporter,  page  425,  the  following  from  the  opinion  of 
Attorney-General  Butler : 

Where  a  civil  war  breaks  out  in  a  foreign  nation,  and  part  of  such  nation 
erect  a  distinct  and  separate  government,  and  the  United  States,  though  they 
do  not  acknowledge  the  independence  of  the  new  government,  do  yet  recog 
nize  the  existence  of  a  civil  war,  our  courts  have  uniformly  regarded  each 
party  as  a  belligerent  nation  in  regard  to  acts  done  jure  belli.  *  *  *  The 
existence  of  a  civil  war  between  the  people  of  Texas  and  the  authorities  of 
the  other  Mexican  States  was  recognized  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  at  an  early  day  in  the  month  of  November  last.  Official  notice  of  this 
fact  and  of  the  President's  intention  to  preserve  the  neutrality  of  the  United 
States  was  'soon  after  given  to  the  Mexican  Government  This  recognition 
has  been  since  repeated  by  numerous  acts  of  the  Executive,  several  of  which 
had  taken  place  before  the  capture  of  the  Pocket. 


270  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

There  is  a  positive  opinion,  entitled  to  great  weight,  that  the 
President  has  the  right  to  announce  belligerency  without  Con 
gressional  co-operation.  Mr.  Wharton,  in  section  71  of  his  Digest, 
says: 

The  question  of  recognition  of  foreign  revolutionary  or  reactionary  govern 
ments  is  one  exclusively  for  the  Executive,  and  can  not  be  determined  inter 
nationally  by  Congressional  action. 

Mr.  Seward  was  an  able  lawyer,  a  distinguished  publicist,  and 
his  views  merit  serious  consideration.  In  a  letter  written  to  Mr. 
Dayton,  then  our  minister  to  France,  he  refers  to  this  point  and 
passes  upon  it  with  clearness  and  positiveness.  I  ask  the  Secretary 
to  read  from  Secretary  Seward's  letter  to  Minister  Dayton. 

The  SECRETARY  read  as  follows : 

I  send  you  a  copy  of  a  resolution  which  passed  the  House  of  Representa 
tives  on  the  4th  instant  by  a  unanimous  vote,  and  which  declares  the  oppo 
sition  of  that  body  to  a  recognition  of  a  monarchy  in  Mexico.  Mr.  Geofroy 
has  lost  no  time  in  asking  for  an  explanation  of  this  proceeding.  It  is  hardly 
necessary,  after  what  I  have  heretofore  written  with  perfect  candor  for  the 
information  of  France,  to  say  that  this  resolution  truly  interprets  the  unan 
imous  sentiment  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  Mexico.  It 
is,  however,  another  and  distinct  question  whether  the  United  States  would 
think  it  necessary  or  proper  to  express  themselves  in  the  form  adopted  by 
the  House  of  Representatives  at  this  time.  This  is  a  practical  and  purely 
Executive  question,  and  the  decision  of  it  constitutionally  belongs  not  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  nor  even  to  Congress,  but  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States. 

You  will  of  course  take  notice  that  the  declaration  made  by  the  House  of 
Representatives  is  in  the  form  of  a  joint  resolution,  which  before  it  can  acquire 
the  character  of  a  legislative  act  must  receive  first  the  concurrence  of  the 
Senate,  and  secondly  the  approval  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or 
in  case  of  his  dissent  the  renewed  assent  of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  to 
be  expressed  by  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  each  body.  While  the  President 
received  the  declaration  of  the  House  of  Representatives  with  the  profound 
respect  to  which  it  is  entitled  as  an  expression  upon  a  grave  and  important 
subject,  he  directs  that  you  inform  the  Government  of  France  that  he  does 
not  at  present  contemplate  any  departure  from  the  policy  which  this  Gov 
ernment  has  hitherto  pursued  in  regard  to  the  war  which  exists  between 
France  and  Mexico.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  the  proceeding  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  was  adopted  upon  suggestions  arising  within  itself, 
and  not  upon  any  communication  of  the  executive  department,  and  that  the 
French  Government  would  be  seasonably  apprised  of  any  change  of  policy 
upon  this  subject  which  the  President  might  at  any  future  time  think  it  proper 
to  adopt. 

I  am,  'sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

WILLIAM   L.  DAYTON,  Esq.,  etc.,  etc.,  etc. 

Mr.  WHITE.  In  an  opinion  already  referred  to,  the  decision  of 
Judge  Brown  in  "  The  Ambrose  Light,"  2$  Federal  Reporter,  page 
443,  that  jurist  says: 

The  additional  facts  proved  show,  however,  such  a  subsequent  implied 
recognition  by  our  Government  of  the  insurgent  forces  as  a  government  de 
facto,  in  a  state  of  war  with  Colombia,  and  entitled  to  belligerent  rights,  as 
should  prevent  the  condemnation  of  the  vessel  as  prize.  The  communication 
from  the  Department  of  State  to  the  Colombian  minister,  bearing  date  the  day 
of  the  seizure,  seems  to  me  to  constitute  such  a  recognition  by  necessary 
implication.  It  could  not  have  been  based  upon  any  facts,  or  have  reference 
to  any  state  of  facts,  not  in  existence  at  the  time  of  the  seizure ;  and  it  should 
be  held,  therefore,  to  arrest  and  supersede  any  subsequent  condemnation  for 
those  acts  of  war  which  such  a  recognition  authorizes  the  insurgents  to  carry 
on. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  271 

There  the  court  grounded  its  judgment  upon  the  proposition  that 
the  Executive,  by  making  a  certain  proclamation  in  reference  to  the 
blockading  of  the  Colombian  ports,  had  recognized  belligerency.  Mr. 
President,  I  go  further  yet  and  maintain  that  after  the  Executive  has 
once  recognized  belligerency  the  authorities  are  that  such  recognition 
can  not  be  withdrawn  except  by  agreement.  This  feature  of  the 
subject  is  discussed  by  Mr.  Hall  in  his  work  on  International  Law, 
pages  37  and  38. 

If  we  are  to  follow  the  decisions  of  our  own  courts;  if  we  are 
to  pay  any  attention  to  the  uniform  practice  of  our  State  Depart 
ment;  if  we  are  to  be  guided  to  any  extent  by  able  writers,  like  Mr. 
Wharton,  who  for  years  was  the  trusted  adviser  of  our  State  Depart 
ment  and  whose  erudition  won  the  commendation  of  publicists 
everywhere,  we  must  conclude  that  in  any  event  recognition  of 
belligerency  or  independence  can  not  be  accomplished  without 
executive  participation.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  rest  my  con 
tention  upon  the  proposition  that  Executive  jurisdiction  is  exclusive, 
though  it  does  seem  to  me  that  such  is  the  law. 

The  resolution  last  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  reads  thus: 

That,  in  the  opinion  of  Congress,  a  condition  of  public  war  exists  between 
the  Government  of  Spain  and  the  Government  proclaimed  and  for  some  time 
maintained  by  force  or  arms  by  the  people  of  Cuba ;  and  that  the  United 
States  of  America  should  maintain  a  strict  neutrality  between  the  contend 
ing  powers,  according  to  each  all  the  rights  of  belligerents  in  the  ports  and 
territory  of  the  United  States. 

Is  it  intended  that  this  resolution  when  adopted  shall  amount 
to  a  proclamation  of  neutrality  and  a  declaration  of  belligerency,  or  is 
it  only  advisory?  If  the  latter,  it  is  of  no  more  efficacy  than  any 
of  the  other  resolutions  submitted.  If  it  is  intended  to  operate 
directly,  then  we  have  the  spectacle  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  issuing  a  proclamation  of  neutrality  without  any  consultation 
whatever  with  the  Executive.  I  venture  to  assert  that  there  is  no 
precedent  and  no  authority  anywhere  for  such  a  position.  Certainly 
none  has  been  cited,  and  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Alabama  is 
so  conversant  with  the  diplomatic  relations  of  this  Government,  past 
and  present,  that  if  there  had  been  any  such  precedent  he  would  have 
mentioned  it.  In  my  opinion  we  should  proceed  either  by  joint 
resolution,  to  be  submitted  to  the  President,  positively  declaring 
belligerency  and  announcing  neutrality,  or  we  should  adopt  an 
expression  of  opinion  and  sympathy  as  suggested  in  the  resolution 
which  I  have  proposed.  I  prefer  the  latter  course,  for  the  reasons 
already  outlined. 

I  am  not  prepared  to  assume  that  the  Executive  has  been  derelict. 
I  think  we  can  trust  Mr.  Cleveland  and  his  distinguished  Secretary 
of  State  to  act  wisely  and  patriotically  in  the  matter  of  our  foreign 
relations.  They  have  manifested  no  indisposition  to  maintain  the 
honor  and  the  integrity  of  this  country.  The  stand  so  recently  taken 
by  the  President  concerning  foreign  affairs  is  approved  by  the  Ameri 
can  people.  Surely  no  one  can  attribute  want  of  firmness  or  fear 
to  either  of  these  distinguished  officers.  Can  it  be  that  they  desire 
to  witness  Cuba  in  the  permanent  grasp  of  a  cruel  master?  Can  it 
be  that  if  a  proclamation  of  belligerency  is  of  any  value  to  the  con 
tending  revolutionists  the  same  is  withheld  without  grave  reason?  I 


272  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

will  discuss  in  a  few  moments  the  legal  effect  of  such  a  declaration 
and  the  position  in  which  it  would  place  the  United  States  and  the 
people  of  that  island. 

But  as  far  as  the  Department  of  State  is  a  subject  of  consider 
ation  I  must  say  that  I  am  entirely  confident  that  nothing-  will  be 
done  either  hastily  or  illegally  and  that  there  will  be  no  undue  delay. 
I  repeat  that  I  trust  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  will  not 
put  itself  in  antagonism  to  the  Executive  upon  a  question  of  the 
recognition  of  belligerency;  certainly  not  without  the  entire  case 
being  presented.  This  Government  has 'never  been  emotional  in  the 
matter  of  the  recognition  of  belligerency. 

I  referred  a  moment  ago  to  the  case  of  Chile.  Mr.  Harrison, 
in  the  extract  from  his  message  which  I  read,  sent  in  here  in  1891, 
spoke  of  the  fact  that  the  agents  of  the  insurgent  government  of  Chile 
had  attempted  to  obtain  an  audience.  He  said : 

During  the  pendency  of  this  civil  contest  frequent  indirect  appeals  were 
made  to  this  Government  to  extend  belligerent  rights  to  the  insurgents  and  to 
give  audience  to  their  representatives.  This  was  declined,  and  that  policy 
was  pursued  throughout  which  this  Government,  when  wrenched  by  civil 
war,  so  strenuously  insisted  upon  on  the  part  of  European  nations. 

He  then  refers  to  his  unsuccessful  prosecution  of  the  Itata. 
What  was  the  condition  in  Chile  at  the  time  that  recognition  was  thus 
refused?  That  condition  was  briefly  this:  The  judicial  department 
of  Chile  decided  that  the  President  had  usurped  certain  authority ; 
the  legislative  department  almost  unanimously  supported  the  judi 
ciary;  both  judicial  and  legislative  officers  were  driven  from  their 
homes  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet  —  they  fled  for  their  lives,  and 
Balmaceda  assumed  supreme  control,  even  closing  the  courts.  The 
navy,  with  inconsiderable  exceptions,  joined  in  the  demonstration 
against  Balmaceda.  The  insurgents,  as  they  were  styled,  took  pos 
session  of  the  harbor  of  Iquique.  They  held  absolutely  and  exclu 
sively  several  of  the  northern  states  of  the  Republic  and  maintained 
undisputed  dominion  over  those  provinces  and  dominated  the  whole 
coast. 

The  harbor  of  Valparaiso  was  blockaded,  and  Balmaceda  was 
unable  to  carry  on  commerce,  while  his  enemies  sailed  over  the  ocean 
at  will.  And  yet  under  that  condition  of  things  Mr.  Harrison 
refused  to  recognize  the  belligerency  of  the  insurgents,  although  they 
represented  at  the  very  outbreak  of  hostilities  the  judicial  and  legis 
lative  branches  of  the  Government,  and  although  the  courts  of  this 
country  afterwards  decided  that  their  organization  really  constituted 
the  Government  from  the  beginning. 

Now,  here  was  a  case  where  I  am  free  to  say  I  think  recognition 
should  have  been  accorded,  because  there  was  manifestly  a  state  of 
war,  and  the  so-called  insurgents  maintained  civilized  rule  and  con 
ducted  in  a  regular  way  all  governmental  functions.  At  least  two 
diplomatic  agents  from  foreign  powers  were  there,  regularly  accred 
ited.  The  courts  were  in  session. 

They  took  prisoners  of  war,  treated  them  in  accordance  with 
modern  usage,  and  maintained  in  all  respects  an  enlightened  estab 
lishment.  Yet  we  refused  to  recognize  them,  and  did,  I  might  add, 
everything  which  one  nation  coulcl  do  to  provoke  another.  In  the 
midst  of  our  efforts  to  belittle  them  the  unrecognized  insurgents 
suddenly  crushed  Balmaceda,  and  the  President  then,  without  the 
aid  of  Congress,  recognized  their  independence. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  273 

I  cite  this  case  not  because  I  think  that  the  President  of  the 
United  States  was  justified  in  withholding  a  recognition  of  belliger 
ency,  though  he  did  so  without  protest  from  anybody  here,  but 
because  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  fact  that  this 
Government  has  of  late  years  especially  been  very  loath  to  engage 
in  any  transaction  which  could  antagonize  a  friendly  people. 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  know,  I  am  not  in  a  position  to  affirm 
that  I  know,  that  the  insurgent  Government  of  Cuba  is  in  a  condition 
absolutely  to  justify  the  accordance  of  belligerent  rights. 

I  think  it  is  probable  that  such  is  their  status,  and  I  draw  that 
inference  mainly  from  the  statement  on  page  51  of  House  Document 
224  to  which  I  referred.  If  Spain  has  proclaimed  the  existence  of 
war,  other  nations  are,  of  course,  free  to  recognize  the  same.  If  one 
of  the  enthusiastic  advocates  who  has  here  pleaded  eloquently  the 
cause  of  Cuba  —  for  instance,  my  distinguished  friend  the  Senator 
from  Florida  [Mr.  CALL] — were  appointed  minister  to  the  Cuban 
Republic,  where  would  he  go?  Where  would  he  meet  the 
diplomatic  officers  of  that  Government,  which,  I  am  sorry  to  say, 
appears  to  me  to  be  in  the  saddle?  Where  is  the  seat  of  govern 
mental  authority?  Where  is  the  place  where  the  judiciary  admin 
isters  its  functions?  Where  does  the  Executive  sit  and  where  are 
the  legislative  obligations  discharged?  I  do  not  know.  Who  knows? 
It  is  true  we  are  told  that  a  constitution  has  been  adopted,  and  there 
are  reported  legislative  proceedings  printed  on  our  desks;  but  I  am 
not  satisfied  that  there  is  any  permanently  fixed  and  operating  and 
accessible  republican  government  on  the  island. 

When  we  have  been  called  upon  to  recognize  belligerency  we 
have  usually  been  brought  into  direct  commercial  contact  with  the 
people  seeking  recognition.  But  our  unlucky  neighbors  have  no 
commerce;  they  have  no  navy;  they  hold  no  ports.  No  case  of 
piracy  can  arise  with  reference  to  them  because  they  have  no 
maritime  standing. 

These  are  reasons  suggesting  themselves  to  my  mind  why  it  is 
necessary  to  make  a  careful  and  painstaking  investigation  to  dis 
cover  the  actual  facts  of  the  case.  The  authorities  read  by  the 
Senator  from  Alabama  are  well  founded  where  they  announce  that 
there  must  be  some  settled  parity  between  the  contending  forces  to 
warrant  the  recognition  of  even  belligerency.  We  may  think  or 
guess  that  recognition  should  be  allowed,  but  we  can  not  know 
unless  we  have  all  the  evidence  before  us.  Without  a  reasonable 
probability  of  success,  unless  there  is  something  like  equality  in  the 
standing  of  the  parties  contending,  recognition  should  not  be 
granted.  The  mere  justice  or  the  injustice  of  the  struggle  can  not 
determine  the  question  of  recognition  or  non-recognition.  The  rules 
usually  prevailing  in  such  cases  are  stated  in  Dana's  Wheaton,  eighth 
edition,  page  34,  note  15;  Lawrence's  International  Law,  sections 
162,  163,  164;  Pomeroy's  International  Law  (Woolsey's  edition), 
section  236.  I  do  not  deem  it  advisable  to  do  more  than  is  indicated 
in  the  proposed  resolution  which  I  have  offered. 

I  prefer  to  leave  the  final  determination  to  the  President.  I 
favor  this  course  not  only  because  of  the  somewhat  dubious  con 
ditions  surrounding  the  matter,  but  because  I  think  it  is  the  law, 
and  that  to  this  rule  we  should  steadfastly  adhere.  At  this  point 
I  will  quote  from  the  message  of  President  Grant,  transmitted  to 
Congress  after  Cuba  had  long  been  in  revolt.  He  said: 


274  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

In  my  annual  message  to  Congress  at  the  beginning  of  its  present  session  I 
referred  to  the  contest  which  had  then  for  more  than  a  year  existed  in  the 
Island  of  Cuba  between  a  portion  of  its  inhabitants  and  the  Government  of 
Spain,  and  the  feelings  and  sympathies  of  the  people  and  Government  of  the 
United  States  for  the  people  of  Cuba,  as  for  all  peoples  struggling  for  liberty 
and  self-government,  and  said  that  the  contest  has  at  no  time  assumed  condi 
tions  which  amount  to  war,  in  the  sense  of  international  law,  or  which 
would  show  the  existence  of  a  de  facto  political  organization  of  the  insurgents 
sufficient  to  justify  a  recognition  of  belligerency. 

During  the  six  months  which  have  passed  since  the  date  of  that  message 
the  condition  of  the  insurgents  has  not  improved;  and  the  insurrection  itself, 
although  not  subdued,  exhibits  no  signs  of  advance,  but  seems  to  be  confined 
to  an  irregular  system  of  hostilities,  carried  on  by  small  and  illy  armed  bands 
of  men  roaming,  without  concentration,  through  the  woods  and  the  'sparsely 
populated  regions  of  the  island,  attacking  from  ambush  convoys  and  small 
bands  of  troops,  burning  plantations  and  the  estates  of  those  not  sympathiz 
ing  with  their  cause. 

Applying  the  best  information  which  I  have  been  enabled  to  gather,  whether 
from  official  or  unofficial  sources,  including  the  very  exaggerated  statements 
which  each  party  gives  to  all  that  may  prejudice  the  opposite  or  give  credit 
to  its  own  side  of  the  question,  I  am  unable  to  see,  in  the  present  condition  of 
the  contest  in  Cuba,  those  elements  which  are  requisite  to  constitute  war 
in  the  sense  of  international  law.  The  insurgents  hold  no  town  or  city; 
have  no  established  seat  of  government ;  they  have  no  prize  courts ;  no  organ 
ization  for  the  receiving  and  collecting  of  revenue;  no  seaport  to  which  a 
prize  may  be  carried  or  through  which  access  can  be  had  by  a  foreign  power 
to  the  limited  interior  territory  and  mountain  fastnesses  which  they  occupy. 
The  existence  of  a  legislature  representing  any  popular  constituency  is  more 
than  doubtful. 

This  opinion  was  announced  in  1870,  but  President  Grant  held 
the  same  views  when  he  penned  his  seventh  annual  message  in  1875. 
(i  Wharton's  International  Digest,  section  60.) 

Newspaper  articles  have  been  read  here  as  proof  of  the  com 
mission  of  horrible  crimes.  We  are  in  the  habit  in  this  Chamber 
of  reading  newspapers  in  evidence  as  though  absolute  verity  per 
tained  to  such  publications. 

Mr.  President,  newspapers  very  often  contain  truth  and  some 
times  they  avoid  the  truth.  There  are  many  individuals  in  the 
world  who  frequently  speak  truly,  and  there  are  other  individuals 
who  commonly  do  not  adhere  to  facts.  Newspapers,  to  some  extent, 
color  information  given  in  their  columns.  Sensations  are  popular. 
Who  can  afford  to  affirm  that  all  the  narrations  of  atrocity,  savage 
almost  beyond  conception,  which  have  been  given  the  public  with 
reference  to  the  transactions  in  Cuba  are  true?  I  believe  General 
Weyler  to  be  a  cold,  relentless,  and  heartless  man.  I  think  the 
record  shows  this  conclusion  to  be  justified.  If  he  committed  the 
outrages  which  are  charged  against  him  here  and  elsewhere  I  am 
at  a  loss  to  account  for  his  existence.  He  could  not  long  survive 
such  crimes.  The  vengeance  of  bereaved  sufferers  would  overtake 
him.  It  is  my  belief  that  the  case  is  bad  enough  when  the  truth  is 
told,  but  I  do  not  wish  here  or  anywhere,  but  particularly  here,  to 
charge  against  a  Government  with  which  we  are  at  peace,  whether 
the  Government  be  strong  or  weak,  whether  its  administration  of 
national  affairs  be  such  as  to  challenge  our  admiration  or  otherwise, 
any  dark  transactions  of  which  we  do  not  have  indubitable  proof. 

The  Senate,  I  understand,  is  specially  charged  with  certain 
functions  pertaining  to  our  foreign  policies.  We  should  approach 
with  caution  the  examination  of  accusations  made  against  a  friendly 
power.  Haste,  excitement,  and  denunciation  have  no  place  in  such 
deliberations. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  275 

The  actual  occurrences  of  this  disturbance  are  sufficiently  sad 
to  meet  all  the  demands  of  the  most  sensational.  It  is  inexcusable 
to  assume  that  sanguinary  rumors,  wholly  unsupported  by  evidence, 
are  correct  and  even  moderate  recitals. 

I  would  personally  rejoice  to  witness  the  Cuban  people  free  from 
alien  control.  I  feel  that  it  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  best 
interests  of  the  United  States  that  any  portion  of  this  continent  or 
the  adjacent  islands  should  be  governed  from  across  the  waters. 
I  do  not,  however,  find  it  requisite  to  exhibit  gory  portrayals  of 
alleged  Spanish  cruelty  in  order  to  sustain  my  position,  or  to  over 
rule  or  overturn  the  undisputed  and  unvarying  policy  of  a  century 
for  the  purpose  of  meeting  this  particular  exigency. 

Mr.  President,  it  may  be  well  to  inquire  what  the  effect  of  the 
recognition,  which  seems  to  be  desired  so  greatly  by  the  Cuban 
patriots,  will  be  upon  their  cause  and  likewise  upon  the  United 
States.  In  the  first  place,  I  affirm  that  as  to  the  right  to  trade  with 
the  people  of  this  country  and  to  purchase  arms,  ammunition,  sup 
plies,  etc.,  the  insurgents  are  as  favorably  situated  now  as  they  can 
be  after  a  recognition  by  us  of  their  belligerency.  Secondly,  I  assert 
that  as  far  as  we  are  concerned,  though  this  to  me  is  a  minor 
consideration,  we  will  assume  in  the  event  of  a  declaration  of 
belligerency  burdens  not  now  upon  our  shoulders. 

When  the  Senator  from  Alabama  had  the  floor  last  Thursday 
the  distinguished  Senator  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  HOAR]  inquired 
of  him  as  to  the  effect  upon  this  country  of  a  recognition  by  us  of 
the  Cubans;  and  the  Senator  from  Alabama  was  asked  whether  it 
was  not  a  fact  that  the  right  of  search  would  be  accorded  to  the 
naval  vessels  of  Spain  in  the  event  of  a  recognition.  Undoubtedly 
such  would  be  the  result.  The  Senator  from  Alabama,  as  I  under 
stood  him,  said  yes,  but  that  such  search  must  be  made  at  the  peril 
of  those  who  seized  the  vessel.  The  rule  upon  that  subject  is  very 
succinctly  and  fully  and  conclusively  stated  in  a  case  called  "  The 
Thompson,"  a  prize  case,  reported  in  3  Wallace,  page  155. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  If  the  Senator  will  allow  me,  I  referred  in 
that  connection  to  the  treaty  of  1795  between  Spain  and  the  United 
States.  I  hope  the  Senator  from  California  has  examined  the  treaty. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes,  sir;  I  have  examined  it.  I  can  not  find 
that  it  affects  this  question  materially,  and  I  will  refer  to  it  here 
after.  I  now  read  the  syllabus  in  the  case  of  the  Thompson: 

1.  Prize    courts    properly    deny    damages    or    costs    where   there    has    been 
"  probable  cause  "  for  seizure. 

2.  Probable  cause  exists  where  there  are  circumstances  sufficient  to  war 
rant  suspicion,  even  though  not  sufficient  to  warrant  condemnation. 

Mr.  HOAR.  The  Senator  will  allow  me  to  interpose  there  to 
say  that  I  had  reference  in  my  question  not  only  to  the  principle 
of  the  liability  of  seizure  to  be  defended  or  justified  by  probable 
cause,  but  to  the  liability  of  search.  If  Spain  has  a  colony  that 
she  is  not  at  war  with,  but  with  which  she  has  only  some  local  dis 
turbances,  and  attaches  a  United  States  vessel  on  the  high  seas,  she 
has  no  more  right  to  enter  with  that  vessel  than  she  has  to  enter  the 
port  of  New  York,  even  if  she  can  show  absolutely  that  what  was  on 
board  was  destined  for  her  insurgents,  unless  it  came  within  the 
3-mile  limit  of  her  shores.  But  if  she  is  at  war,  then  she  may  search 
every  American  vessel  at  her  discretion  on  the  high  seas.  There  is 


276  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

no  question  about  her  right  to  stop  the  New  York,  as  I  understand 
it,  at  her  discretion.  She  may  stop  the  New  York  or  the  Paris  on  the 
high  seas  whenever  she  deems  that  the  vessel  is  designed  to  aid  the 
party  that  might  be  at  war.  That  is  my  point. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  appreciate  the  question  addressed  to  me  by  the 
Senator  from  Massachusetts  and  am  disposed  to  agree  with  him. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  beg  leave  to  say  that  I  differ  totally  with 
the  Senator. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  do  not  understand  the  position  of  the  Senator 
from  Alabama,  and  I  should  be  glad  to  hear  him  state  it. 

Mr.  MORGAN.  Vessels  approaching  the  ports,  whether  block 
aded  or  not,  of  one  of  the  belligerents  are  liable  to  search  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  they  contain  contraband  of  war. 
That  liability,  however,  is  regulated  by  the  treaty  of  1795,  which 
prescribes  the  particular  manner  in  which  the  search  shall  be  made, 
and  excludes  Spain  from  the  right  of  search,  even  when  the  ship  is 
passing  along  the  three-mile  limit,  unless  she  has  contraband  on 
board. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Does  the  Senator  mean  to  state  that  the  treaty 
excludes  Spain  from  the  right  of  searching  any  vessel? 

Mr.  MORGAN.  I  do  not ;  but  conditions  are  provided  by  treaty 
which  are  not  in  accordance  with  international  law. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  do  not  intend  to  conclude  this  evening,  and  as 
a  copy  of  the  treaty  is  not  before  me  at  this  moment  I  will  defer  a 
critical  examination.  At  all  events,  taking  the  limitation  suggested 
by  the  Senator  from  Alabama,  the  right  of  search  does  obtain  within 
a  restricted  area,  at  least.  There  is  no  doubt  about  that? 

Mr.  MORGAN.     No. 

Mr.  WHITE.  In  the  next  place,  Spain  can,  in  the  event  of  our 
declaration  of  neutrality,  blockade  her  ports.  There  is  no  dispute 
as  to  this.  Then  any  American  citizen  on  the  Island  of  Cuba  today 
who  is  injured,  who  loses  his  property  by  reason  of  insurgent  raids, 
may  have  the  basis  for  such  a  claim  as  Mora  successfully  asserted 
and  collected.  But  this  will  not  be  the  rule  if  after  belligerency  is 
declared  and  neutrality  proclaimed  the  damage  is  suffered.  What 
ever  may  be  the  effect  of  the  liberal  treaty  referred  to  by  the  Senator 
from  Alabama,  I  think  it  will  be  found  that  the  inconveniences  to 
which  our  commerce  would  be  subjected  in  the  event  of  a  proclama 
tion  of  neutrality  would  be  many  and  great. 

I  will  now  make  a  few  observations  as  to  the  rights  of  the 
Cubans  in  revolt  to  purchase  contraband  material  here. 

When  the  late  Chilean  war  was  in  progress  the  Junta,  or  anti- 
Balmacedan  party,  occupied  the  same  legal  position  with  regard  to 
the  United  States  as  do  those  who  claim  to  represent  the  Republic 
of  Cuba.  They  were  unrecognized.  They  had  sought  recognition 
without  avail.  Therefore  the  situations  may  be  considered  parallel. 
Under  such  conditions  the  Junta  sent  a  vessel  to  San  Diego  and 
there  were  placed  upon  her,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  rifles,  ammunition,  etc.  The  vessel  sailed  with  that  cargo 
to  Iquique.  The  munitions  of  war  had  been  purchased  in  New  York 
and  had  been  transported  across  this  continent  and  placed  upon  a 
schooner  in  the  harbor  of  San  Francisco  and  sent  thence  to  Clemente 
Island,  situated  within  California  waters.  The  United  States  sent 
the  cruiser  Charleston  to  Iquique  and  took  the  Itata  and  cargo  back 
to  San  Diego  and  libeled  her  under  the  provisions  of  the  Revised 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  277 

Statutes  upon  which  this  Government  now  relies  in  the  matter  of  the 
prosecution  just  established  in  New  York.  The  parties  who  pur 
chased  the  arms  were  arrested  and  brought  to  trial.  Here,  then,  is 
an  analogous  case,  a  case  upon  all  fours  with  that  presented  when  the 
Cubans  send  an  ordinary  merchant  ship  to  this  country  to  buy  war 
supplies  for  home  consumption.  Yet  the  district  court  of  the  United 
States,  and  afterwards  the  circuit  court  of  appeals,  decided  that  the 
Itata  and  those  who  manned  her  were  innocent  and  were  not  amena 
ble  to  any  of  the  neutrality  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the 
Chilean  insurgents  had  a  right  to  buy  and  take  away  the  coveted 
consignment.  In  that  case  it  was  determined  that  the  Government 
could  only  prosecute  the  defendants  under  the  provisions  of  sections 
5283  to  5286  of  the  Revised  Statutes,  which  refer  to  neutral  duties, 
unless  they  could  be  treated  as  pirates,  a  proposition  impossible 
under  our  departmental  rulings.  It  was  intimated,  but  not  decided, 
that  there  is  no  Federal  statute  under  which  mere  unrecognized  fac 
tions  can  be  punished.  This  quaere  was  incidentally  made  by  Judge 
Ross,  who  tried  the  case  at  nisi  prius  (United  States  vs.  Trumbull, 
48  Federal  Reporter)  ;  and  a  similar  hint  was  thrown  out  by  Judge 
Brown  in  the  Carondolet  (37  Federal  Reporter).  There  are  expres 
sions  in  Gelston  vs.  Hoyt  (3  Wheaton,  245)  and  United  States  vs. 
Quincy  (6  Peters,  445)  to  the  same  purport.  The  case,  however, 
was  squarely  settled  upon  the  merits,  and  the  effect  of  the  adjudica 
tion  is  that  recognition  of  either  belligerency  or  independence  is  not 
essential  to  justify  trade  in  contraband  merchandise. 

President  Harrison,  in  the  message,  to  which  I  have  already 
alluded,  in  commenting  upon  that  decision  said : 

A  trial  in  the  district  court  of  the  United  States  for  the  southern  district 
of  California  has  recently  resulted  in  a  decision  holding,  among  other  things, 
that,  inasmuch  as  the  congressional  party  had  not  been  recognized  as  a 
belligerent,  the  acts  done  in  its  interest  could  not  be  a  violation  of  our  neu 
trality  laws.  From  this  judgment  the  United  States  has  appealed,  not  that 
the  condemnation  of  the  vessel  is  a  matter  of  importance,  but  that  we  may 
know  what  the  present  state  of  our  law  is,  for  if  this  construction  of  the 
statute  is  correct  there  is  obvious  necessity  for  revision  and  amendment. 

While,  as  I  have  remarked,  the  lower  court  did  not,  as  stated 
by  Mr.  Harrison,  base  its  decision  upon  that  ground,  and  the  mes 
sage  is  incorrect  to  that  extent,  nevertheless  such  was  the  intimation. 
No  action  was  taken  by  Congress  pursuant  to  the  Presidential  request ; 
no  legislation  was  had  amending  the  provisions  of  the  statute  cited 
or  making  the  penal  provision  applicable  specifically  to  mere  insur 
rectionists.  These  rights  with  reference  to  trade  have  been  long 
recognized.  No  one  stated  the  law  more  plainly  than  Judge  Story  in 
"  The  Santissima  Trinidad,"  7  Wheaton. 

But  if  it  be  true  that  the  insurgents  in  Cuba  have  the  same  right 
to  procure  arms  and  supplies  under  the  present  condition  of  affairs 
as  they  would  if  the  United  States  recognized  them  as  belligerents, 
where  is  the  vast  importance  attributed  to  this  recognition?  What 
privileges  would  they  thus  obtain?  Outside  of  a  certain  moral 
advantage  the  sole  theoretical  benefit  would  be  a  curtailment  of  the 
rights  of  Spain.  As  it  is  now,  the  insurgents  have  no  national 
status  and  Spain  is  not  prohibited  from  coming  to  our  ports  and 
arming  her  vessels,  and  she  may  fit  out  military  expeditions  here  or 
take  any  steps  competent  to  her  in  normal  times.  In  the  event  of 
recognition  Spain  would  be  also  liable  under  our  neutrality  statute. 


278  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

That  is  one  advantage  which  would  accrue  to  Cuba  in  consequence 
of  belligerency.  But  practically  what  would  this  amount  to?  Spain 
is  not  engaged  in  fitting  out  expeditions  in  this  country.  There  is  no 
sympathy  for  her  here.  She  can  procure  no  men  to  enlist  in  her 
cause;  she  can  obtain  no  aid  and  comfort  in  America.  She  may,  like 
her  foes,  buy  supplies  and  arms  in  our  market,  but  that  is  her  right 
in  any  event.  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  but  little  benefit  can  follow 
even  effective  action  for  recognition. 

What  potency  accompanies  any  resolution  we  may  adopt?  We 
all  desire  to  see  Cuba  liberated,  but  how  can  she  achieve  her  inde 
pendence  except  through  her  own  efforts?  If  our  Government  were 
not  careful  in  the  enforcement  of  her  neutrality  laws,  perhaps  the 
insurgent  cause  might  advance  more  rapidly.  If  these  people  were 
more  carefully  advised  there  would  not,  I  am  persuaded,  be  serious 
difficulty  in  getting  much-needed  ammunition  and  other  war  mate 
rial,  but  expeditions  can  not  be  fitted  out  here  nor  can  men  enlist  for 
hostile  service  and  arm  ships  in  our  waters  for  warlike  enterprise. 
No  one  proposes  that  we  shall  declare  war  against  Spain,  and  unless 
we  do  so  the  excited  language  daily  repeated  here  is  not  appropriate. 

Mr.  President,  our  wishes  are  for  Cuban  freedom,  but  can  we 
accomplish  this  by  mere  naked  declaratign?  Senators  have  con 
demned  Spain  and  have  criticised  her  policies  with  severity,  but  all 
this  is  futile.  We  should  appreciate  the  truth  that  we  can  not  peace 
ably,  or  with  due  respect  for  international  obligations,  go  further  than 
sympathetic  expression.  If  the  President  determines  to  announce 
that  the  Cubans  in  revolt  are  entitled  to  the  rights  of  war  they  will 
still  be  subject  to  sections  5283-5286  of  the  Revised  Statutes  of  the 
United  States.  This  would  be  true  if  Cuban  independence  were 
recognized  by  us  and  must  remain  true  while  war  lasts.  Our  decla 
ration  of  neutrality  itself  implies  that  we  will  vigorously  enforce  the 
law  as  against  all  parties  to  the  contest.  We  are  in  honor  bound  to 
do  so.  It  is  well  to  keep  these  facts  before  us.  All  should  remem 
ber  that  in  no  way  can  we  relieve  the  people  of  Cuba  from  the  effect 
of  our  neutrality  laws  unless  we  boldly  deny  Spain's  right  and  our 
selves  take  charge  of  the  issue  and  declare  war. 

[At  this  point  Mr.  WHITE  yielded  for  a  motion  to  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  executive  business.] 

Thursday,  February  27,  1896. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  President,  when  the  Senate  adjourned  yes 
terday  I  was  endeavoring  to  state  the  respective  legal  rights  of  the 
parties  combatant  in  Cuba,  as  I  understood  them,  and  the  effect  of 
recognition.  In  the  course  of  the  afternoon  the  Senator  from  Ala 
bama  [Mr.  MORGAN]  called  my  attention  to  the  treaty  entered  into 
by  this  Government  with  Spain  in  1795  and  to  its  effect  upon  the 
commercial  relations  of  the  two  countries.  Since  that  time  I  have 
examined  that  convention  with  some  care,  and  find  in  it  three  arti 
cles  of  much  importance,  viz,  the  fifteenth,  the  sixteenth,  and  the 
seventeenth.  They  are  lengthy,  and  I  shall  not  read  them  through 
out. 

Article  15  provides  that  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  subjects  and 
citizens  of  both  countries  to  trade  with  belligerents,  and  with  those 
who  are  enemies  of  both,  without  any  opposition  or  disturbance 
except  in  matters  contraband. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  279 

Article  16  enumerates  the  merchandise,  etc.,  which  shall  be  con 
sidered  the  subject  of  legitimate  trade. 

Article  17,  which  I  take  to  be  the  particular  article  alluded  to 
by  the  Senator  from  Alabama,  provides  as  follows : 

To  the  end  that  all  manner  of  dissensions  and  quarrels  may  be  avoided 
and  prevented  on  one  side  and  the  other,  it  is  agreed,  that  in  case  either  of 
the  parties  hereto  should  be  engaged  in  a  war,  the  ships  and  vessels  belong 
ing  to  the  subjects  or  people  of  the  other  party  must  be  furnished  with  sea 
letters  or  passports,  expressing  the  name,  property,  and  bulk  of  the  ship,  as 
also  the  name  and  place  of  habitation  of  the  master  or  commander  of  the  said 
ship,  that  it  may  appear  thereby  that  the  ship  really  and  truly  belongs  to  the 
subjects  of  one  of  the  parties,  which  passport  shall  be  made  out  and  granted 
according  to  the  form  annexed  to  this  treaty.  They  shall  likewise  be  recalled 
every  year,  that  is,  if  the  ship  happens  to  return  home  within  the  space  of  a 
year. 

The  article  then  continues  and  provides  the  essentials  to  be  con 
tained  in  such  passports,  and  it  is  provided  that: 

It  is  likewise  agreed  that  such  ships  being  laden  are  to  be  provided  not  only 
with  passports  as  above  mentioned,  but  also  with  certificates  containing  the 
several  particulars  of  the  cargo,  the  place  whence  the  ship  sailed,  so  that  it 
may  be  known  whether  any  forbidden  or  contraband  goods  be  on  board  the 
same;  which  certificates  shall  be  made  out  by  the  officers  of  the  place  whence 
the  ship  sailed  in  the  accustomed  form.  And  if  anyone  shall  think  it  fit  or 
advisable  to  express  in  the  said  certificates  the  person  to  whom  the  goods  on 
board  belong,  he  may  freely  do  so.  Without  which  requisites  they  may  be  sent 
to  one  of  the  ports  of  the  other  contracting  party  and  adjudged  by  the  com 
petent  tribunal,  according  to  what  is  above  set  forth,  for  all  the  circum 
stances  of  this  omission  having  been  well  examined,  they  shall  be  adjudged 
to  be  legal  prizes,  unless  they  shall  give  legal  satisfaction  of  their  property  by 
testimony  entirely  equivalent. 

Were  this  stipulation  possible  of  enforcement  it  would  amount 
to  this :  That  if  a  vessel  of  the  contracting  parties  possesses  the 
passport  provided  for  no  further  search  or  inquiry  can  be  made, 
because  the  passport  is  made  conclusive.  However,  I  find  upon 
investigation  that  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  rendered  a  decis 
ion  to  the  effect  that  this  article  is  wholly  nugatory,  for  the  reason 
that  the  passports  mentioned  are  referred  to  in  the  article  as  though 
the  form  for  the  same  were  annexed  to  or  set  forth  in  the  treaty, 
but,  in  consequence  of  carelessness  no  doubt,  the  required  form  is 
not  annexed. 

The  Supreme  Court  decision  to  which  I  allude,  and  which  I 
shall  not  read,  as  it  is  lengthy,  was  written  by  Mr.  Justice  Story. 
It  is  entitled  "The  Amiable  Isabella,"  6  Wheaton,  page  i.  I  read 
from  the  syllabus,  which  seems  to  be  fully  authorized  by  the  opinion : 

The  seventeenth  article  of  the  Spanish  treaty  of  1795,  so  far  as  it  purports 
to  give  any  effect  to  passports,  is  imperfect  and  inoperative  in  consequence  of 
the  omission  to  annex  the  form  of  passport  to  the  treaty. 

Quaere. — Whether,  if  the  form  had  been  annexed  and  the  passport  were 
obtained  by  fraud  and  upon  false  suggestions,  it  would  have  the  conclusive 
effect  attributed  to  it  by  the  treaty? 

Quaere. — Whether  sailing  under  enemy's  convoy  be  a  substantive  cause  of 
condemnation? 

By  the  Spanish  treaty  of  1795  free  ships  make  free  goods;  but  the  form  of 
the  passport  by  which  the  freedom  of  the  ship  was  to  have  been  conclusively 
established,  never  having  been  duly  annexed  to  the  treaty,  the  proprietary 
interest  of  the  ship  is  to  be  proved  according  to  the  ordinary  rules  of  the  prize 
court,  and  if  thus  shown  to  be  Spanish,  will  protect  the  cargo  on  board,  to 
whomsoever  the  latter  may  belong. 


280  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Therefore,  while  it  was  no  doubt  within  the  contemplation  of 
those  who  agreed  to  this  treaty  that  a  passport  should  be  conclusive, 
and  no  further  search  be  permitted,  it  seems  that  the  liberal  purpose 
entertained  failed  of  accomplishment  by  reason  of  the  clerical  omis 
sion  referred  to.  This  is  not  of  any  grave  importance,  and  I  merely 
allude  to  it  as  a  matter  connected  with  the  history  of  the  treaty. 

Mr.  FRYE.     Mr.   President 

Mr.  WHITE.     I  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Maine. 

Mr.  FRYE.  I  desire  to  ask  the  Senator  where  passports  for 
ships  are  provided  for?  Does  the  Senator  know? 

Mr.  WHITE.     In  article  17  of  this  treaty. 

Mr.  FRYE.  Is  there  any  provision  of  our  statutes,  to  which 
the  Senator  can  refer,  which  provides  for  passports  for  ships  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  There  may  be,  but  if  so  I  have  not  the  provision 
in  mind. 

Mr.  FRYE.  The  treaty  in  referring  to  passports  makes  no  ref 
erence  whatever  as  to  whether  it  is  a  passport  provided  by  general 
law,  or  whether  it  is  a  special  passport. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Yes ;  it  says :  "  Which  passport  shall  be  made 
out  and  granted  according  to  the  form  annexed  to  this  treaty." 
Judge  Story  says  that  the  Supreme  Court  can  not  make  a  treaty, 
and  that  as  there  is  no  form  annexed  to  the  treaty,  and  that  as  the 
treaty  called  for  a  certain  form  and  no  other,  and  as  such  form  does 
not  exist,  the  whole  article  must  be  held  inoperative.  If  the  Senator 
will  read  the  argument  by  counsel  and  then  the  opinion  by  Judge 
Story,  he  will  find  an  exhaustive  and  interesting  discussion.  I  do 
not  care  to  read  it  at  this  time. 

Mr.  FRYE.  I  simply  asked  the  question  for  information, 
because  the  Committee  on  Commerce  have  reported  a  bill  for  the 
repeal  of  the  section  which  provided  in  certain  cases  for  passports 
for  ships,  and  my  own  impression  was  that  it  was  not  the  passport 
to  which  that  treaty  referred;  and  I  wished  to  know  whether  it  was 
or  not. 

Mr.  WHITE.  There  is  a  note  in  the  official  edition  of  the 
treaty  showing  the  peculiar  situation  of  the  case.  It  is  as  follows: 

The  form  of  passport  referred  to  in  this  article  is  not  annexed  either  to  the 
original  treaty  signed  by  the  negotiators,  or  to  the  copy  bearing  the  ratification 
of  the  King  of  Spain,  on  file  in  the  Department  of  State.  See  "  The  Amiable 
Isabella"  (6  Wheaton's  Reports,  i).  It  is  remarkable,  however,  that  to  the 
Spanish  version  of  the  treaty,  in  volume  2,  page  429,  of  "  Coleccion  de  los  Tra- 
tados  de  Paz,"  etc.,  published  at  Madrid  in  1800,  "  de  orden  del  Rey,  en  la  im- 
prenta  real,"  there  are  annexed  two  forms  in  Spanish  for  passports ;  one  for 
ships  navigating  Europeon  seas,  the  other  for  those  navigating  the  American 
seas. 

Mr.  President,  I  stated  during  my  argument  yesterday  that  cer 
tain  rights  in  reference  to  the  purchase  of  arms  were  possessed  by 
these  insurgents  in  common  with  the  rest  of  mankind,  and  that  there 
was  no  law,  and  is  none,  and  never  has  been,  which  prohibits  a 
manufacturing  company  in  the  United  States  from  selling  arms  to 
anyone  who  may  come  to  purchase  the  same,  and  I  referred  to  the 
several  decisions,  conclusive,  as  it  seems  to  me,  upon  this  proposition. 
I  will  add  one  or  two  more  expressions  of  jurists  on  the  subject. 

During  the  Mexican  war,  the  Maximilian  difficulty,  Mr.  Speed, 
our  Attorney-General,  in  an  opinion  to  be  found  in  n  Opinions  of 
the  Attorneys-General,  page  451,  says: 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  281 

I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of  the  23d  of 
March,  together  with  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Romero,  the  minister  of  the 
Mexican  Republic.  Mr.  Romero  says  that  he  has  been  informed  that  agents 
of  the  "  usurper  Maximilian  "  have  purchased  in  New  York  5,000  muskets,  and 
that  they  are  to  be  shipped  to  Vera  Cruz,  not  "  as  private  property,  but  for 
account  of  the  said  usurper."  Mr.  Romero  asks  that  the  shipment  be  not 
allowed.  You  ask  my  opinion,  whether  there  is  any  law  or  regulation  now  in 
force  prohibiting  the  exportation  of  arms  for  the  account  of  any  person,  what 
ever  be  his  political  designation,  real  or  assumed,  or  of  any  Government. 

This  question  is  fully  answered  in  my  opinion  delivered  to  you  on  the  23d 
di..y  of  last  December — 

Referring  to  an  opinion  to  be  found  on  page  408  of  the  same 
book  which  is  also  relevant  here. 

The  opinion  of  the  23d  of  December  was  given  upon  a  complaint  of  Mr. 
Romero  that  General  McDowell,  commanding  the  military  department  of  Cali 
fornia,  had  prohibited  the  exportation  of  arms  or  munitions  of  war  by  the 
frontier  into  Mexico.  That  opinion  is  to  the  effect  that  General  McDowell's 
order  was  unlawful. 

I  can  perceive  no  difference  in  principle  between  that  case  and  this.  So  far 
as  neutrals  are  concerned,  belligerent  parties  are  equals. 

I  know  of  no  law — 

He  continues  —  and  here  is  the  pertinent  proposition  - 

or  regulation  which  forbids  any  person  or  government,  whether  the  political 
designation  be  real  or  assumed,  from  purchasing  arms  from  citizens  of  the 
United  States  and  shipping  them  at  the  risk  of  the  purchaser,  etc. 

Mr.  President,  if  an  ordinary  merchant  vessel  were  to  visit  the 
city  of  New  York,  sent  there  by  the  insurgents  and  manned  by  a 
regular  crew,  a  cargo  of  war  supplies  might  be  purchased  and  taken 
away,  as  was  done  in  the  case  of  Chile,  without  any  infraction  of  any 
law  of  the  United  States.  Such  is  the  conclusion  of  the  United 
States  circuit  court  of  appeals  in  the  Itata  case  (56  Federal  Reporter, 
505;  id.,  49,  647;  United  States  vs.  Trumbull,  48  id.,  90)  already 
mentioned,  and  is  the  legitimate  result  of  the  other  authorities  which 
I  have  cited. 

This  principle  has  been  referred  to  by  many  international  law 
writers.  I  will  furnish  some  references : 

Vattel,  Law  of  Nations,  edition  1883,  page  338;  2  Ferguson's 
Manual  of  International  Law,  sections  229,  230,  and  263 ;  Hall  on 
International  Law,  third  edition,  pages  80,  612,  613 ;  Wheaton's 
International  Law,  third  edition  (Boyd),  pages  583,  595,  and  653; 
i  Opinions  Attorneys-General  (Lee)  61 ;  id.  (Bush),  190;  7  id. 
(Gushing),  122;  ii  id.  (Speed),  408,  451;  2  Wharton's  Criminal 
Law,  section  1903 ;  3  Wharton's  International  Law  Digest,  section 
391,  and  numerous  precedents  there  given;  Twiss's  Law  of  Nations, 
296,  cited  ii  American  and  English  Encyclopedia  of  Law,  478; 
Kluber  Droit  des  Gens.,  section  288,  cited  ii  American  and  English 
Encyclopedia  of  Law,  page  478;  The  Santissima  Trinidad,  7 
Wheaton,  283;  The  Florida  (a  Cuban  insurgency  case),  4  Ben.,  452; 
View  of  Secretary  Evarts,  3  Wharton's  International  Law,  515; 
Pickering,  Secretary  of  State,  I  American  State  Papers,  page  649; 
Hamilton,  Secretary  of  Treasury,  i  American  State  Papers,  page 
141;  The  Carondolet,  37  Federal  Reporter,  800;  i  Kent's  Commen 
taries,  142;  The  Bermuda,  3  Wallace,  551. 

I  mention  these  cases  simply  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
while  it  will  be  pleasant  for  those  of  us  who  sympathize  with  the 
19 


282  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Cuban  cause  to  learn  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  has 
found  that  the  evidence  justifies  according  belligerency  to  the 
Cubans,  still  that  such  proceeding  upon  the  part  of  the  Executive 
can  not  be  followed  by  any  direct  substantial  advantage  in  a  legal 
sense.  There  may,  as  I  have  observed,  be  resulting  encouragement, 
but  there  will  also  be  greater  determination  on  the  other  side  of  the 
issue. 

I  think  that  I  have  already  said  what  must  be  plain  to  all,  that 
while  the  right  of  trade  exists  within  the  limits  defined,  still  the 
insurgent  vessel  or  the  ship  containing  contraband  is  subject  to  cap 
ture  and  confiscation  by  the  enemy. 

I  know  it  has  been  said  —  and  my  remarks  upon  this  branch  of 
the  subject  would  not  be  satisfactory  even  to  myself  if  I  did  not 
allude  to  it  —  that  the  United  States  may  treat  unrecognized  insur 
rectionists,  such  as  these  insurgents,  as  pirates,  and  there  is  at  least 
one  Federal  decision  so  holding;  but  the  important  proposition  is 
whether  this  Government  would  so  treat  revolutionists.  Mr.  Cleve 
land  has  made  a  record  for  himself  on  that  subject,  and  I  think  the 
State  Department  has  settled  the  matter  conclusively.  After  the 
decision  to  which  I  have  alluded,  wherein  it  was  held  that  an  unrec 
ognized  insurgent  might  be  treated  as  a  pirate,  Mr.  Wharton  wrote 
a  very  learned  and  very  elaborate  and  extremely  satisfactory  article, 
which  was  published  in  33  Albany  Law  Journal,  commencing  on  page 
125,  and  from  which  copious  quotations  are  made  in  his  Digest, 
denying  the  correctness  of  the  court's  view.  He  cites  a  message  of 
President  Cleveland  sent  to  Congress  on  December  8,  1885,  with 
reference  to  the  Colombian  difficulty.  The  President  said: 

Pending  these  occurrences  a  question  of  much  importance  was  presented 
by  decrees  of  the  Colombian  Government,  proclaiming  the  closure  of  certain 
ports  then  in  the  hands  of  insurgents,  and  declaring  vessels  held  by  the  revolu 
tionists  to  be  piratical  and  liable  to  capture  by  any  power.  To  neither  of  these 
propositions  could  the  United  States  assent.  An  effective  closure  of  ports  not 
in  the  possession  of  the  Government,  but  held  by  hostile  partisans,  could  not 
be  recognized ;  neither  could  the  vessels  of  insurgents  against  the  legitimate 
sovereignty  be  deemed  hostes  humani  generis  within  the  precepts  of  interna 
tional  law,  whatever  might  be  the  definition  and  penalty  of  their  acts  under  the 
municipal  law  of  the  State  against  whose  authority  they  were  in  revolt.  The 
denial  by  this  Government  of  the  Colombian  propositions  did  not,  however, 
imply  the  admission  of  a  belligerent  status  on  the  part  of  the  insurgents. 

It  is  also  shown  by  Mr.  Wharton  that  Mr.  Bayard,  during  the 
same  Administration,  on  April  9,  1885,  addressed  a  very  clear  and 
strong  letter  addressed  to  Mr.  Ricardo  Becerra,  who  was  the  Colom 
bian  representative  in  this  city,  in  which  he  announced  the  same 
doctrine.  Not  alone  did  that  administration  so  hold,  but  in  1883 
Mr.  Frelinghuysen  prepared  a  communication,  which  can  also  be 
found  in  Mr.  Wharton's  article,  in  which  he  reached  a  similar  result. 
His  words  are  as  follows : 

The  expedient  of  declaring  a  revolted  national  vessel  to  be  a  "  pirate  "  has 
often  been  resorted  to  amo'ng  the  Spanish-American  countries  in  times  of  civil 
tumult,  and  on  late  occasions  in  France.  At  the  time  of  the  Murcian  rising 
in  1873,  the  insurgents  at  Cartagena  seized  the  Spanish  ironclads  in  harbor  and 
cruised  with  them  along  the  coast,  committing  hostilities.  The  Spanish  Gov 
ernment  proclaimed  the  vessels  pirates  and  invited  their  capture  by  any  nation. 
A  German  naval  commander,  then  in  the  Mediterranean,  did,  in  fact,  capture 
one  of  the  revolted  ships  and  claimed  it  as  a  German  prize,  but  his  act  was  dis 
avowed.  The  rule  is  simply  that  a  "pirate"  is  the  natural  enemy  of  all  men, 
to  be  repressed  by  any  and  wherever  found,  while  a  revolted  vessel  is  the  enemy 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  283 

only  of  the  power  against  which  it  acts.  While  it  may  be  outlawed,  so  far  as 
the  outlawing  State  is  concerned,  no  foreign  State  is  bound  to  respect  or  exe 
cute  such  outlawry  to  the  extent  of  treating  the  vessel  as  a  public  enemy  of 
mankind.  Treason  is  not  piracy,  and  the  attitude  of  foreign  Governments 
toward  the  offender  may  be  negative  merely  so  far  as  demanded  by  a  proper 
observance  of  the  principle  of  neutrality. 

Mr.  Wharton  was  deeply  interested  in  the  subject.  He  obtained 
the  opinions  of  Calvo  and  other  eminent  publicists,  all  of  which  are 
fully  noted  in  the  publication  just  mentioned. 

So,  even  if  the  Cubans  were  possessed  of  vessels  and  had  any 
status  upon  the  ocean,  there  would  be  no  danger  that  they  would  be 
treated  by  this  Government  as  pirates,  and  hence  their  legal  condition 
is  no  worse  now,  as  far  as  the  laws  of  the  United  States  are  con 
cerned,  than  it  would  be  if  their  belligerency  was  recognized.  All 
the  neutrality  laws  would  then  be  enforceable,  and  our  Government 
would  no  doubt  act  accordingly. 

Mr.  President,  there  are  some  resolutions  before  this  body  with 
reference  to  the  independence  of  Cuba.  I  desire  to  say  at  this  point 
that  it  is  a  subject  of  regret  that  Cuba  is  not  really  independent. 
But  that  she  is  not  independent  is  to  me  palpable.  We  have  before 
us  resolutions  affirming  belligerency,  and  now  I  learn  we  are  also 
asked  to  resolve  that  Cuba  is  independent.  These  propositions  do 
not  seem  to  be  very  harmonious.  The  latter  can  not  certainly  in  any 
event  be  properly  adopted.  It  is  settled,  I  think,  by  all  authorities 
upon  the  subject  that  the  independence  of  no  people  can  be  recog 
nized  by  this  or  any  other  civilized  nation  until  the  disturbances,  the 
real,  vital  disturbances,  are  practically  closed,  not  entirely,  it  is  true, 
but  the  case  of  the  parent  country  must  be  desperate  before  an 
acknowledgment  of  independence  is  allowable.  Under  prevailing 
conditions  a  recognition  of  the  independence  of  Cuba  would  be  con 
trary  not  only  to  the  precedents,  but  certainly  would  be  in  defiance 
of  fact. 

Mr.  President,  during  the  war  of  the  rebellion  we  engaged  in  a 
very  extensive  diplomatic  correspondence  with  France,  Spain,  and 
England ;  and  anyone  who  will  peruse  the  communications  which 
passed  between  Mr.  Adams  and  Earl  Russell,  and  contrast  the  doc 
trines  there  laid  down  with  some  that  I  have  heard  announced  here, 
will  come  to  the  conclusion  that  we  are  receding  from  our  former 
position.  While  we  undoubtedly  did  take  an  extreme  stand  then, 
we  have  never  adopted  any  plan  or  theory  which  will  permit  the 
recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  Cuban  people  in  their  present 
situation. 

The  Senator  from  Alabama  has  very  properly  observed  —  and 
his  remark  was  a  conclusive  answer  to  these  resolutions  —  that  the 
power  to  recognize  the  independence  of  a  State  is  vested  wholly  in 
the  Executive.  That  being  the  case,  we  will  not,  I  hope,  be  so  incon 
sistent  as  to  adopt  any  resolution  declaring  that  Cuba  is  independent. 
Our  efforts  should  be  confined  now  to  expressions  of  sympathy  and 
opinion,  and  these  should  be  tendered  in  the  hope  that  a  friendly  and 
satisfactory  conclusion  will  be  negotiated  looking  to  Cuba's  freedom. 
Independence  is  the  final  consummation  desired.  But  that  condition 
does  not  now  obtain,  and  if  it  shall  be  otherwise  the  Executive  alone 
can  officially  proclaim  it. 

Mr.  VEST.  Will  the  Senator  from  California  allow  me  to  ask 
him  a  question? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Yes,   sir. 


284  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  VEST.  Without  in  the  slightest  degree  controverting  the 
Senator's  statement  in  regard  to  what  has  been  the  practice  of  the 
United  States  in  recognizing  a  people  struggling  for  independence, 
is  it  not  a  question  exclusively  with  every  nation  to  pass  upon  the 
fact  whether  a  rebellion,  as  it  is  termed,  is  in  a  desperate  condition; 
in  other  words,  whether  the  mother  country,  Spain  in  this  case,  is 
able  to  suppress  that  insurrection,  as  they  term  it?  Would  we  not 
be  alone  responsible  to  ourselves  if  we  stated  that  we  believed  the 
President  of  the  United  States  ought  to  recognize  the  independence 
of  Cuba?  Is  there  any  tribunal,  except  the  conscience  of  the  Ameri 
can  people,  to  which  an  appeal  can  be  made  in  that  case?  And  if  I 
am  correct  —  and  I  think  I  am  —  in  that  statement,  then  I  should 
like  to  know  from  the  Senator  from  California  —  for  that  is  the 
practical  question  —  whether  he  believes  that  Spain  can  suppress  that 
insurrection,  and  whether  he  does  not  believe  that  the  cause  of  Spain 
to-day  with  a  view  to  that  end  is  desperate  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  find  no  difficulty  in  answering  the  question  of 
the  -Senator  from  Missouri.  Of  course  we  are  responsible  only  to 
ourselves.  Undoubtedly  so.  That  must  necessarily  be  the  case. 
We  are  not  responsible  to  Spain.  We  are  answerable  only  to  our 
consciences.  Our  adhesion  to  the  precepts  laid  down  by  publicists 
in  this  matter  and  our  compliance  with  our  own  oft-repeated  pre 
cepts  must  be  voluntary.  We  so  act  because  we  think  it  to  be  right. 
A  rule  of  conduct  with  reference  to  international  concerns  laid  down 
by  anybody,  by  any  nation  outside  of  our  own,  is  not  literally  binding 
upon  us,  but  I  imagine  we  do  not  set  ourselves  up  here  as  abso 
lutely  independent  of  all  principle.  We  are  bound  only  because  we 
are  civilized  to  an  observance  of  those  regulations  and  practices  which 
enlightenment  has  dictated.  We  can  not,  I  think,  repudiate  the 
views  of  the  great  masters  of  jurisprudence  who  have  always  com 
manded  the  respect  of  the  law-abiding. 

Our  obedience  to  these  righteous  requirements  can  not  be 
enforced  by  legal  writs;  moral  coercion  will  suffice. 

The  Senator  from  Missouri  asks  me  whether  I  do  not  think  that 
the  cause  of  Spain  is  desperate.  Mr.  President,  I  do  not  know.  I 
sincerely  hope  that  the  people  of  Cuba  will  be  successful  in  establish 
ing  a  government  of  their  own  choice,  but  I  do  not  know  whether 
they  will  or  not.  The  information  which  I  have  upon  the  subject  is 
of  a  character  not  satisfactory  to  my  mind.  The  Senator  may  believe 
the  situation  as  to  Spain  to  be  desperate,  but  when  we  find  Spanish 
power  surrounding  this  island,  when  we  find  her  in  possession,  appar 
ently  secure,  of  the  centers  of  population,  when  we  find  that  not  a 
single  port,  not  a  single  avenue  of  trade  is  in  the  control  of  the 
insurgents,  that  they  have  not  a  ship  upon  the  ocean,  that  they  have 
no  commercial  or  international  representation,  I  am  far  from  believ 
ing  that  a  point  has  been  reached  to  justify  a  recognition  of  inde 
pendence. 

Mr.  VEST.  If  my  friend  will  permit  me,  it  seems  to  me  mani 
festly  unjust  in  the  determination  of  that  which  is  the  vital  question 
in  this  whole  controversy,  and  all  the  balance  is  leather  and  prunella, 
to  ignore  the  one  fact  to  which  he  does  not  allude,  and  that  is  that 
these  same  people,  the  Cubans,  without  having  a  ship  upon  the  ocean, 
without  being  in  possession  of  a  single  important  port,  successfully 
resisted  the  Spanish  power  for  ten  long  years,  and  then  only  laid 
down  their  arms  upon  certain  conditions  —  one  of  which  was  the 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  285 

abolition  of  slavery  in  the  island  —  which  were  immediately  violated 
by  the  Spanish  Government. 

Now,  if  they  could  for  ten  years  maintain  themselves  by  force 
of  arms  against  the  Spanish  dynasty  without  ships,  without  muni 
tions  of  war  except  those  that  they  manufactured  themselves,  why  can 
they  not  now  maintain  the  same  sort  of  struggle  until  Spain  is  forced 
to  admit,  as  she  did  before,  that  it  is  impossible  to  put  down  the 
insurrection?  All  those  things  must  be  considered  together,  and  I 
submit  to  my  friend  the  Senator  from  California  that  if  we  content 
ourselves  with  simply  an  expression  of  sympathy  we  had  better  drop 
this  question,  for  it  will  be  a  miserable  farce  from  end  to  end. 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  Senator  from  Missouri  will  recognize  the 
fact  that  I  have  endeavored  to  show  that  the  various  resolutions 
which  it  is  proposed  to  adopt  will  not  have  any  substantial  effect  upon 
this  struggle.  I  agree  with  him  about  that  matter. 

Mr.  VEST.  Does  the  Senator  from  California  propose  to  state 
that  if  we  now,  by  the  act  of  both  Houses  of  Congress,  request  the 
President  of  the  United  States  to  recognize  the  independence  of 
Cuba 

Mr.  WHITE.     I  am  not  speaking  of  that  resolution. 

Mr.  VEST.  That  is  the  resolution,  and  all  the  balance  amount 
to  nothing. 

Mr.  W'HITE.  The  resolutions  reported  by  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations  are  the  matters  to  which  I  was  addressing  myself 
when  I  stated  that  the  resolutions  proposed  to  be  adopted  would  not, 
in  my  opinion,  have  any  substantial  effect  upon  this  struggle. 

Mr.  VEST.     I  agree  with  the  Senator  about  that  point. 

Mr.  WrHITE.  I  attempted  to  illustrate  it  by  showing  the  status 
of  those  people  under  a  mere  recognition  of  belligerency  and  their 
status  as  insurgents.  Of  course  if  we  recognize  their  independence, 
and  also  that  a  war  exists,  which  we  would  have  to  do,  we  would  be 
compelled  to  maintain  neutrality,  and  I  do  not  know  that  they  would 
derive  a  great  deal  of  benefit  from  that.  I  have  shown,  I  think,  that 
Cuban  rights  as  to  trade  would  not  then  be  materially  different. 
Their  independence  might  be  acknowledged,  and  yet,  if  there  is  war, 
our  neutrality  laws  would  be  in  effect  and  would  be  of  course 
enforced. 

But,  Mr.  President,  I  have  asserted,  and  I  'have  no  doubt  the 
members  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  must  have  reached 
the  same  conclusion  in  view  of  the  resolutions  reported  by  that  com 
mittee  —  the  determination  must  have  been  made  —  that  there  is  no 
precedent  or  policy  justifying  a  recognition  of  independence  at  this 
time. 

The  Senator  from  Missouri  reasons  thus :  He  says  that  the 
Cubans  maintained  a  war  for  ten  years,  which  the  Spaniards  were 
unable  to  put  down;  that  now,  that  they  have  carried  on  a  struggle 
for  one  year  or  two  years,  they  must  be  independent.  I  deny  the 
conclusion.  The  premises  do  not  warrant  it  at  all.  It  is  a  matter 
concerning  which  no  man  can  speak  definitely  without  more  informa 
tion  than  the  meager  facts  before  us.  To  assert  here  by  a  resolution 
that  the  Cuban  people  have  accomplished  their  independence  when 
we  know  they  have  not  accomplished  it,  when  we  know  they  are 
endeavoring  to  accomplish  it,  when  we  know  they  are  making  every 
effort  to  attain  that  condition,  when  we  know  that  it  is  an  unrealized 


286  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

hope,  would  be  to  write  ourselves  down  as  anything  but  reasonable 
men. 

Certainly  a  declaration  of  that  kind  would  not  have  any  satis 
factory  effect.  It  would  be  an  announcement  here  in  the  form  of  a 
resolution  of  that  which  we  should  know  is  untrue.  Some  believe 
that  Cubans  are  in  a  position  to  finally  win.  Personally  I  would 
rejoice  to  see  them  victorious,  but  to  solemnly  proclaim  that  they 
have  already  won  is  to  do  violence  to  the  notorious  fact  that  there  is  a 
bloody  and  fierce  conflict  in  progress  day  by  day  in  Cuba,  maintained 
by  the  revolutionists  against  great  odds. 

Whatever  substantial  I  can  do  within  the  limits  of  propriety 
and  without  violating  rules  established  by  this  Republic,  as  well  as 
by  intelligent  peoples  everywhere,  I  am  ready  to  perform,  but  I  do 
not  propose  to  vote  for  a  resolution  which  expresses  that  which  is 
untrue  merely  because  my  sympathies  and  feelings  are  aroused.  It 
is  idle  to  read  any  authorities  in  answer  to  a  proposition  such  as  that 
stated  by  the  Senator  from  Missouri,  who  seems  to  desire  to  estab 
lish  a  precedent  in  this  case  against  all  others.  If  everyone  has  been 
in  error,  it  is,  of  course,  well  to  make  the  departure.  I  have  already 
attracted  attention  to  the  language  of  Mr.  Seward  in  his  letter  to  Mr. 
Adams,  wherein  he  pointed  out  the  weighty  responsibility  assumed 
in  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of  a  new  state.  The  subject 
was  fully  considered  by  President  Jackson  in  the  case  of  Texas  : 

Undoubtedly  when  Texas  had  achieved  her  independence  no  previous  treaty 
could  bind  this  country  to  regard  it  as  a  part  of  the  Mexican  territory.  But  it 
belonged  to  the  Government,  and  not  to  individual  citizens,  to  decide  when  that 
event  had  taken  place.  And  that  decision,  according  to  the  laws  of  nations, 
depended  upon  the  question  whether  she  had  or  had  not  a  civil  government 
in  successful  operation,  capable  of  performing  the  duties  and  fulfilling  the  obli 
gations  of  an  independent  power.  It  depended  upon  the  state  of  the  fact,  and 
not  upon  the  right  which  was  in  contest  between  the  parties.  And  the  Presi 
dent,  in  his  message  to  the  Senate  of  December  22,  1836,  in  relation  to  the 
conflict  between  Mexico  and  Texas,  which  was  still  pending,  says :  "  All  ques 
tions  relative  to  the  government  of  foreign  nations,  whether  of  the  Old  or  the 
New  World,  have  been  treated  by  the  United  States  as  questions  of  fact  only, 
and  our  predecessors  have  cautiously  abstained  from  deciding  upon  them  until 
the  clearest  evidence  was  in  their  possession,  to  enable  them  not  only  to  decide 
correctly,  but  to  shield  their  decision  from  every  unworthy  imputation." — 
Senate  Journal  of  1836,  page  54. 

"  The  acknowledgment  of  a  new  state  as  independent  and  entitled  to  a 
place  in  the  family  of  nations  is  at  all  times  an  act  of  great  delicacy  and 
responsibility,  but  more  especially  so  when  such  a  state  has  forcibly  separated 
itself  from  another  of  which  it  formed  an  integral  part,  and  which  still  claims 
dominion  over  it." 

And  after  speaking  of  the  policy  which  our  Government  had  always 
adopted  on  such  occasions,  and  the  duty  of  maintaining  the  established  char 
acter  of  the  United  States  for  fair  and  impartial  dealing,  he  proceeds  to  express 
his  opinion  against  the  acknowledgment  of  the  independence  of  Texas  at  that 
time  in  the  following  words : 

"  It  is  true,  with  regard  to  Texas,  the  civil  authority  of  Mexico  has  been 
expelled,  its  invading  army  defeated,  the  Chief  of  the  Republic  himself  cap 
tured,  and  all  present  power  to  control  the  newly  organized  Government  of 
Texas  annihilated  within  its  confines.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  in  appear 
ance,  at  least,  an  immense  disparity  of  physical  force  on  the  side  of  Mexico. 
The  Mexican  Republic,  under  another  Executive,  is  rallying  its  forces  under  a 
new  leader,  and  menacing  a  fresh  invasion  to  recover  its  lost  dominion.  Upon 
the  issue  of  this  threatened  invasion  the  independence  of  Texas  may  be  con 
sidered  as  suspended,  and,  were  there  nothing  peculiar  in  the  relative  situation 
of  the  United  States  and  Texas,  our  acknowledgment  of  its  independence  at 
such  a  crisis  would  scarcely  be  regarded  as  consistent  with  that  prudent  reserve 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  287 

with  which  we  have  heretofore  held  ourselves  bound  to  treat  all  similar  ques 
tions.'' 

The  right  of  the  President  to  determine  this  subject  was  never 
denied,  notwithstanding  the  anxiety  of  our  people  to  acknowledge 
Texan  independence. 

Mr.  Dana  says  (Dana's  Wheaton,  page  45,  note)  that  the  attempt 
to  invade  Texas  was  abandoned  by  Mexico  before  the  United  States 
acknowledged  her  independence.  Similar  policy  was  pursued 
regarding  the  South  American  Republics.  The  United  States  acted 
first,  but  not  for  many  years  "  after  long  recognized  belligerency  and 
the  practically  unobstructed  exercise  by  them  of  sovereign  powers. 
Spain,  separated  by  an  ocean,  had  abandoned  actual  efforts  for  their 
reduction  and  only  clung  to  a  nominal  right."  (Dana's  Wheaton, 
page  43,  note.) 

Mr.  Adams  wrote  to  Mr.  Monroe  in  1816  (i  Wharton's  Digest, 
section  70)  : 

There  is  a  stage  in  such  (revolutionary)  contests  when  the  party  struggling 
for  independence  has,  as  I  conceive,  a  right  to  demand  its  acknowledgment  by 
neutral  parties,  and  when  the  acknowledgment  may  be  granted  without  depart 
ure  from  the  obligations  of  neutrality.  It  is  the  stage  when  the  independence 
is  established  as  matter  of  fact,  so  as  to  leave  the  chance  of  the  opposite  party 
to  recover  their  dominion  utterly  desperate.  *  *  *  But  the  justice  of  a 
cause,  however  it  may  enlist  individual  feelings  in  its  favor,  is  not  sufficient 
to  justify  third  parties  in  siding  with  it.  The  fact  and  the  right  combined  can 
alone  authorize  a  neutral  to  acknowledge  a  new  and  disputed  sovereignty. 

We  there  acted  in  accordance  with  the  fact.  We  recognized  a 
condition  of  things  which  was  patent  to  the  world,  plain,  unmistaka 
ble  ;  but  not  until  we  were  sure  of  our  position. 

Now,  there  may  be  a  mode  by  which  we  may  actually  accom 
plish  the  freedom  of  Cuba.  If  the  Senator  from  Alabama  [Mr. 
MORGAN]  is  correct  that  the  announcement  of  belligerency  means 
a  declaration  of  war,  that,  perhaps,  will  settle  the  affair.  We  shall 
then  possibly  have  enough  on  our  hands.  We  have  not  been  warlike 
in  any  new  case  during  the  last  few  days,  but  the  future  is  promis 
ing  enough.  Why  not  wait  until  we  complete  the  disbursement  of 
the  $87,000,000  recommended  to  be  devoted  to  coast  defenses? 

I  shall  be  guided  in  what  I  do  and  how  I  vote  by  my  conception 
of  duty,  experiencing  at  the  same  time  none  but  the  kindest  senti 
ments  toward  Cuba;  but  I  will  not  be  a  party  to  the  new  departure 
favored  by  the  Senator  from  Missouri  [Mr.  VEST],  when  in  my 
judgment  such  conduct  would  be  wholly  unprovoked  and  unwar 
ranted. 

A  concurrent  resolution,  by  whomsoever  offered  or  whatever  it 
may  contain,  is  nothing  more  than  an  expression  of  sympathy.  As 
stated  by  the  Senator  from  Missouri,  it  will  not,  and  as  I  have 
attempted  to  show  by  its  own  force  it  can  not,  directly  accomplish 
anything  for  Cuba.  Nor  would  a  recognition  of  independence  be 
of  material  value.  However,  I  am  opposed  to  taking  that  step  for 
the  ample  reasons  which  I  will  not  repeat. 

Congress  has  not  hesitated  upon  other  occasions  to  express  an 
opinion  as  to  Executive  action,  and  may  do  so  here.  The  sentiments 
thus  uttered  will  be  carefully  and  respectfully  considered. 

I  have  no  doubt  that  the  Administration  is  solicitous  for  Cuban 
independence.  I  believe  that  when  the  circumstances  warrant  it 


288  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

decisive  action  will  be  taken.  But  the  emphatic  sympathy  of  Con 
gress  may  hasten  not  only  Executive  action,  but  may,  if  properly 
done,  have  important  indirect  effect.  But  a  declaration  that  there  is 
independence  would  be  considered  everywhere  as  emotional  and 
unfounded. 

I  prefer  the  resolution  which  I  have  suggested  to  any  pending 
before  the  Senate.  Some  one  has  stated  that  in  that  resolution  the 
Monroe  doctrine  is  sought  to  be  restricted.  I  think  it  is  extended 
rather  than  curtailed.  The  words  to  which  reference  has  been  thus 
made  are  the  following: 

While  the  United  States  have  not  interfered  and  will  not,  unless  their 
vital  interests  so  demand,  interfere  with  existing  colonies  and  dependencies  of 
any  European  Government  on  this  hemisphere,  nevertheless  our  people  have 
never  disguised  and  do  not  now  conceal  their  sympathy  for  all  those  who 
struggle  patriotically,  as  do  the  Cubans  now  in  revolt,  to  exercise,  maintain, 
and  preserve  the  right  of  self-government. 

The  phraseology  criticised  is  that  with  reference  to  the  non-inter 
ference  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Monroe's  doctrine  was :  "  With 
the  existing  colonies  or  dependencies  of  any  European  power  we  have 
not  interfered  and  shall  not  interfere."  The  proposition  favored  by 
me  is  that  we  shall  not  interfere  unless  our  vital  interests  so  demand. 
Hence  my  suggestion  rather  broadens  the  Monroe  doctrine  as 
announced  by  its  author. 

A  Senator  who  has  pressed  with  much  force  the  pending  inde 
pendence  resolution  said  that  we  might  as  well  abandon  the  Monroe 
doctrine  if  we  do  not  recognize  Cuba;  but  if  that  doctrine  has  any 
application  to  Cuba  at  all  it  would  seem  that  under  it  we  must  keep 
our  hands  off,  because,  as  I  have  already  said,  Mr.  Monroe's  words 
are,  "  With  the  existing  colonies  or  dependencies  of  any  European 
power  we  have  not  interfered  and  shall  not  interfere.''  To  this 
declaration  we  have  very  lately  given  our  unqualified  support. 

In  conclusion  I  reiterate  that  I  shall  support  the  resolution  pro 
posed  by  myself,  or  something  similar,  as  a  sincere  expression  of 
justified  regard  and  hope.  I  shall  not  vote  for  a  recognition  of  the 
independence  of  Cuba,  first,  because  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  our 
function,  without  Executive  participation,  to  recognize  either  the 
belligerency  or  independence  of  any  nation;  secondly,  because  I  do 
not  think  that  independence  has  been  achieved  within  the  rules  men 
tioned  or  at  all,  and  I  am  unwilling  to  declare  that  a  certain  condi 
tion  exists  when  I  know  to  the  contrary. 


HAWAIIAN  CABLE  AND  ANNEXATION 


SPEECH 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
Friday,  February  8,  1895. 

The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  bill  (H.  R.  8234)  making  appro 
priations  for  the  diplomatic  and  consular  service  for  the  fiscal  year  ending 
June  30,  1896,  the  pending  question  being  on  the  amendment  reported  by  the 
Committee  on  Appropriations,  on  page  9,  after  line  8,  to  insert: 

"  CONSTRUCTION    OF    TELEGRAPH      CABLE     BETWEEN     THE      UNITED     STATES      AND    THE 

HAWAIIAN    ISLANDS. 

"  The  President  is  hereby  authorized  to  contract  for  the  entire  work  of  lay 
ing  a  telegraphic  cable  between  the  United  States  and  the  Hawaiian  Islands 
and  to  direct  the  prosecution  of  such  work  whenever  such  a  contract  shall  be 
made,  and  as  a  part  of  the  cost  of  such  cable  the  sum  of  $500,000  is  hereby 
appropriated  "- 

Mr.  WHITE  said: 

Mr.  PRESIDENT:  The  question  pending  before  the  Senate  has 
reference  exclusively,  as  I  understand  it,  to  the  propriety  of  appro 
priating  $500,000  toward  the  laying  of  a  cable  to  Honolulu,  to  what 
ever  point  upon  those  islands  may  be  found  desirable.  Yet  the  dis 
cussion  has  broadened  until  there  has  been  included  not  only  the 
cable  issue,  not  only  the  Hawaiian  revolution,  but  also  a  variety  of 
topics  pertaining  to  annexation.  The  Senator  from  South  Dakota 
[Mr.  KYLE],  who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  has  even  elaborately  dis 
cussed  the  effect  of  missionary  expeditions  to  the  Hawaiian  group, 
and  has  presented  a  far  more  delightful  narration  of  the  good  that 
he  asserts  has  been  done  than  that  which  was  afforded  by  his  col 
league  [Air.  PETTIGREW]. 

Mr.  President,  if  we  trace  the  numerous  controversies  which 
have  thus  been  tendered  for  investigation  throughout  their  entire 
length  and  breadth,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  this  discussion  will  not  ter 
minate  until  the  life  of  the  present  Congress  expires.  I  shall  briefly 
allude  to  two  or  three  matters  which  have  been  debated  rather  fully, 
though  not  directly  involved,  and  then  shall  say  a  word  regarding 
the  cable. 

In  the  beginning  permit  me  to  observe  that  I  see  no  reason  to 
confound  the  submarine  cable  with  other  subjects.  I  see  no  reason 
for  the  conclusion  that  it  is  essential  for  us  to  favor  the  annexation 
of  the  Sandwich  Islands,  and  to  uphold  Mr.  Stevens  and  the  mis 
sionaries  in  order  to  justify  an  inclination  toward  the  construction  of 
a  cable.  The  propositions  appear  to  me  to  be  entirely  dissimilar, 
and  one  does  not  at  all  depend  upon  the  other. 

In  the  first  place,  Mr.  President,  I  will  mention  and  comment 
upon  the  instructions  which  have  been  criticised  by  several  Senators, 
and  which  were  given  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  to  Admiral 
Beardslee.  Those  instructions,  so  far  as  they  are  at  all  pertinent  to 
this  discussion,  are  worded  thus : 

289 


290  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Proceed  with  the  United  States  ship  Philadelphia  with  dispatch  to  Hono 
lulu,  Hawaiian  Islands. 

Your  purpose  as  commander  of  the  naval  forces  of  the  United  States  will 
be  the  protection  of  the  lives  and  property  of  American  citizens.  In  case  of 
civil  war  in  the  islands  you  will  extend  no  aid  or  support,  moral  or  physical, 
to  any  of  the  parties  engaged  therein,  but  you  will  keep  steadily  in  view  that 
it  is  your  duty  to  protect  the  lives  and  property  of  all  such  citizens  of  the 
United  States  as  shall  not  by  their  participation  in  such  civil  commotions  sub 
ject  themselves  to  local  laws,  and  thus  forfeit  their  right  in  that  regard  to  the 
protection  of  the  American  flag.  An  American  citizen  who  during  a  revolu 
tion  or  insurrection  in  a  foreign  country  participates  in  an  attempt  by  force  of 
arms  or  violence  to  maintain  or  overthrow  the  existing  Government,  or  who 
aids  in  setting  on  foot  a  revolution  or  insurrection  in  such  country,  can  not 
claim  as  matter  of  right  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States  shall  protect 
him  against  the  consequences  of  such  act. 

The  attack  upon  these  instructions  was  inaugurated  by  the  Sena 
tor  from  Colorado  [Mr.  TELLER],  who,  I  am  glad  to  see,  is  in  his 
seat  at  this  time.  After  prolonged  discussion  it  now  seems  that  there 
is  not  as  much  difference  between  Senators  as  was  at  first  manifested. 
It  is  disclosed  that  the  real  contention  is  what  was  meant  by  the 
instructions.  I  presume  that  no  one  will  say  that  if  an  American 
citizen  participates  in  an  attempt  to  overthrow  or  maintain  the  Gov 
ernment  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  and  that  long  thereafter  and  as  a 
consequence  of  his  act  some  absurd  and  unprecedented  penalty  is 
sought  to  be  visited  upon  him,  he  would  be  held  to  have  forfeited 
his  privilege  as  an  American  citizen  to  proper  interference  in  his 
behalf.  I  apprehend  that  when  Mr.  Herbert  used  the  language  he 
employed  he  used  it  in  the  light  of  events  which  had  taken  place, 
and  with  which  the  whole  country  was  then  as  now  familiar.  He 
was  correct  in  assuming  that  strained  interpretation  would  not  be 
made  by  those  whose  conduct  it  was  designed  to  influence. 

J  am  not  able  to  admit  that  any  of  the  authorities  which  were 
cited  by  the  Senator  from  Colorado  to  the  slightest  extent  conflict 
with  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  rule  laid  down  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Navy.  I  find  in  a  letter  from  Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  Secretary  of 
State,  to  Mr.  Lowell,  dated  April  25,  1882,  cited  in  2  Wharton's 
International  Law,  page  453,  the  following: 

Its  [American  citizenship]  assumption  implies  the  promise  and  the  obliga 
tion  to  observe  our  laws  at  home,  and  peaceably  as  good  citizens  to  assist  in 
maintaining  our  faith  abroad,  without  efforts  to  entangle  us  in  internal  troubles 
or  civil  discord  with  which  we  have  not,  and  do  not  wisJi  to  have,  anything 
to  do.  When  an  American  citizen  thus  conducts  himself,  whether  at  home  or 
abroad,  he  is  entitled  to  the  confidence  of  his  Government  and  active  support  of 
all  its  officials. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  Secretary  at  that  time,  in  defining  that 
conduct  of  the  American  citizen  which  entitles  the  person  pursuing 
it  to  the  protection  of  this  Government,  stated  that  such  citizen  must 
abstain  from  participating  in  internal  troubles  or  civil  discord.  He 
drew  no  distinction  between  those  who  seek  to  maintain  and  those 
who  endeavor  to  overthrow.  We  have  a  treaty  with  the  Hawaiian 
Republic,  that  is,  a  treaty  entered  into  with  the  preceding  Govern 
ment,  and  which  is  still  in  full  force  and  effect,  whereby  our  people 
are  exempted  from  all  kinds  and  descriptions  of  military  duty. 
Hence,  if  an  American  citizen  aids  by  force  or  violence  either  party 
to  a  Hawaiian  revolution  he  does  so  without  compulsion  and  at  his 
own  risk.  Such  is  the  rational  reading  and  plain  meaning  of  the 
instructions  referred  to. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  291 

Mr.  President,  I  am  free  to  concede  that  if  the  Government  now 
in  power  in  Hawaii  chose  to  seize  an  American  citizen  and  force  him 
to  render  military  service  —  to  bear  arms  against  his  will  —  he  would 
in  such  event  forfeit  nothing;  but  I  do  contend  that  if  an  American 
citizen  sees  fit  to  enlist  under  a  foreign  flag  and  to  engage  in  war  he 
is  not  protected  from  the  consequences  of  that  war  —  the  reasonable, 
natural,  ordinay  consequences.  I  do  not  include  remote  consequence, 
cruelties,  for  instance,  which  a  party  successful  in  the  conflict  might 
attempt  to  impose,  but  I  refer  to  the  consequences  commonly  antici 
pated. 

With  this  in  view,  I  asked  the  Senator  from  Colorado,  while 
engaged  in  making  his  remarks,  whether  he  intended  to  maintain 
that  if  the  Government  of  the  United  States  found  one  of  its  citizens 
enlisted  under  the  banner  of  Hawaii  it  was  the  duty  of  that  Govern 
ment  to  maintain  and  assist  such  citizen  to  the  end  that  he  might  not 
be  harmed  in  the  progress  of  his  military  engagement.  The  Senator 
very  promptly  replied  that  he  did  not  so  contend.  Thereupon  it 
seemed  to  me  that  all  the  attacks  upon  these  instructions  necessarily 
fail,  unless  we  are  to  give  them  the  absurd  reading  that  Mr.  Herbert 
intended  to  advise  that  when  an  American  citizen  enters  into  the 
service  of  a  foreign  power  any  danger  menacing  him  afterwards 
which  might  be  but  dimly  traced  to,  or  might  find  as  its  distant  cause, 
his  first  engagement  or  the  animosities  thereby  engendered,  can  not 
be  averted  by  act  of  our  Government.  I  do  not  understand  that  any 
such  instruction  was  given,  and  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
Admiral  Beardslee  can  not  so  construe  the  language.  Senators  who 
do  not  view  this  matter  as  I  do  concede  that  an  American  joining  the 
Dole  forces  may  be  slain  in  battle  by  revolutionists  without  the 
occurrence  of  any  obligation  on  our  part  to  save  him.  He  may  be 
shot  down,  they  say,  but  must  not  be  imprisoned.  Revolutionists 
may  kill  him  in  conflict,  but  they  can  not  capture  him ;  or  if  they  do 
capture  him  he  must  be  released  at  once,  to  rejoin,  no  doubt,  the 
army  of  the  Government  he  is  endeavoring  to  maintain.  It  results 
that  the  revolutionist  must  avoid  taking  American  prisoners.  I  fail 
to  detect  the  logic  of  this  argument. 

Mr.  President,  all  instructions,  as  well  as  court  opinions,  are 
given  in  view  of  the  facts  of  the  particular  case.  In  the  present 
instance  this  Administration  had,  as  I  consider  upon  ample  proof, 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  United  States  officers  under  tshe  inspira 
tion  of  Mr.  Stevens  had  not  abstained  from  mingling  in  internal 
contention  as  they  should  have  abstained,  and  as  matters  were  some 
what  disturbed,  the  Government  having  been  but  recently  threatened 
by  revolution,  it  was  not  unnatural  that  the  Administration  should 
caution  its  officers  against  a  renewal  of  antecedent  interference  and 
should  enjoin  upon  Admiral  Beardslee  the  propriety  of  preventing 
any  service  by  the  marines  of  the  United  States  in  the  interest  of 
either  party  to  a  civil  conflict.  History  shows  that  timely  warnings 
are  necessary.  Some  military  men  go  abroad  anxious  for  excitement 
and  not  thoroughly  versed  in  international  obligations.  The  instruc 
tions  are  all  right.  When  the  present  Government  was  in  the  forma 
tive  process  those  who  are  now  condemning  Mr.  Cleveland  did  not 
find  it  advisable  to  insist  that  it  was  wrong  to  support  a  revolution 
and  a  matter  of  duty  to  sustain  the  existing  condition. 

Mr.  President,  my  friends  upon  the  other  side  of  this  question 
have  urged  upon  us  during  this  debate,  as  they  urged  at  an  earlier 


292  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

date,  the  propriety  of  the  annexation  of  Hawaii.  I  do  not  propose 
to  run  over  this  matter  in  detail.  In  an  address  which  I  delivered 
here  upon  the  21  st  of  February  last  I  stated  my  views  quite  fully. 
However,  in  the  light  of  the  position  which  I  am  about  to  take  with 
reference  to  the  cable  appropriation,  I  deem  it  well  to  anticipate  any 
misunderstanding  as  to  my  position  concerning  annexation,  and  I 
shall  very  briefly  reiterate  what  I  have  heretofore  advanced  against 
the  carrying  out  of  such  a  plan. 

First,  I  am  opposed  to  such  annexation,  because  I  believe  that 
we  are  not  in  a  condition  to  bring  within  our  confines  the  elements 
which  there  exist.  There  are  Europeans  in  Hawaii  who  would 
undoubtedly  make  valuable  citizens  if  they  saw  fit  to  assume  the 
obligations  of  that  condition.  The  statistics  furnished  us  vary  some 
what;  but  I  am  willing  to  assume,  and  such  must  indeed  be  the  fact, 
that  a  large  majority  of  the  Europeans  upon  the  islands  could  qualify 
for  citizenship.  Much  has  been  said  in  reference  to  the  Portuguese 
who  reside  there.  If  these  Portuguese  belong  to  the  class  to  which 
Portuguese  citizens  in  California  belong  then  I  can  assert  with  cer 
tainty  that  they  would  make  valuable  citizens  and  would  contribute 
their  proper  share  toward  the  maintenance  and  support  of  any  Gov 
ernment  and  the  advancement  of  the  people.  But  when  we  put 
aside  the  European  element,  what  do  we  encounter?  What  races 
constitute  the  preponderating  population  in  these  islands? 

The  Senator  from  South  Dakota  [Mr.  KYL£]  who  spoke  this 
morning  stated  —  and  I  suppose  he  must  know  about  it  —  that  the 
native  population  has  no  will  —  the  islander  has  no  will  of  his  own. 
The  Senator  gave  this  conclusion  as  a  reason  showing  that  we  should 
not  demand  as  a  condition  precedent  to  annexation  the  acquiescence 
of  all  the  people,  that  the  people  were  of  such  a  kind  and  character 
that  they  had  no  judgment,  no  discretion,  could  not  be  charged  with 
willfulness,  and  yet,  singularly  enough,  he  followed  this  with  the 
statement  that,  as  the  net  result  of  the  visits  and  teachings  of  the 
early  missionary,  the  natives  had  been  elevated  (?)  to  their  present 
happy  state.  I  think  that  the  missionaries  have  done  far  more  good 
than  the  Senator  seems  to  imply  by  this  declaration.  I  will  perhaps 
concede  that  if  the  people  of  the  islands  are  reduced  to  a  condition 
where  they  have  no  wish,  no  will  —  are  incapable  of  voluntary  act  — 
that  they  are  happy;  they  certainly  can  not  appreciate  unhappiness. 
But  will  anyone  contend  that  a  population  of  that  sort,  whether  it  be 
a  happy  population  or  not,  could  be  otherwise  than  detrimental  to  this 
Republic?  Who  desires  fellow-citizens  or  neighbors  thus  constituted 
and  disqualified? 

Then  we  have  the  Japanese.  It  is  said  that  there  are  now  nearly 
20,000  Japanese  in  Hawaii  —  though,  according  to  the  statistics  fur 
nished  by  Mr.  Blount,  there  were,  when  the  census  upon  which  he 
relied  was  taken,  but  a  little  over  half  that  number  —  but  there  are 
some  20,000  in  the  islands  at  this  hour.  There  are  likewise  on  hand 
almost  as  many  Chinese.  Mr.  President,  we  have  passed  most 
drastic  legislation  against  Mongolian  immigration.  We  have 
endeavored  to  keep  Chinamen  away  from  the  United  States ;  we  have 
affirmed  that  their  presence  is  not  only  hostile  to  the  best  interests  of 
this  Government  but  may  be  positively  destructive  of  it. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Will  the  Senator  from  Califor 
nia  please  suspend  for  a  moment,  to  enable  the  Chair  to  lay  before 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  293 

the  Senate  a  message  from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  which 
the  Secretary  will  read. 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  BLACKBURN.  Before  the  message  is  read  I  ask  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  Senate  that  at  the  hour  of  half  past  2 
o'clock  to-morrow  the  Senate  will,  without  further  debate,  proceed 
to  vote  upon  the  then  pending  amendments  to  the  pending  appropria 
tion  bill  and  upon  the  bill. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Is  there  objection  to  the  request 
of  the  Senator  from  Kentucky  that  at  half  past  2  o'clock  to-morrow 
the  Senate  proceed  to  vote  on  the  amendments  to  the  pending  bill 
and  on  the  bill?  The  Chair  hears  no  objection,  and  it  is  so  ordered. 

The  message  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  will  now 
be  read. 

The  SECRETARY  read  as  follows : 

To  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives: 

I  transmit  herewith  for  the  information  of  the  Congress  a  copy  of  a  tele 
graphic  dispatch  just  received  from  Mr.  Willis,  our  minister  to  Hawaii,  with 
a  copy  of  the  reply  thereto,  which  was  immediately  sent  by  the  Secretary  of 
State.  | 

GROVER  CLEVELAND. 

EXECUTIVE  MANSION,  February  8,  1895. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  message  and  accompanying 
papers  will  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  and 
printed,  if  there  be  no  objection. 

Mr.  FRYE.     Let  the  dispatches  be  read,  Mr.  President. 
Mr.  HALE.     Yes,  let  everything  that  accompanies  the  message 
of  the  President  be  read. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.     The  dispatches  will  be  read. 
The  SECRETARY  read  as  follows : 
COOPER, 

United  States  Dispatch  Agent, 

Post-Office  Building,  San  Francisco,   Cal. 

Forward  following  by  first  steamer  to  A.  S.  Willis,  United  States  minister, 
Honolulu : 

If  American  citizens  were  condemned  to  death  by  a  military  tribunal,  not 
for  actual  participation  in  reported  revolution,  but  for  complicity  only,  or  if 
condemned  to  death  by  such  a  tribunal  for  actual  participation  but  not  after 
open  fair  trial  with  opportunity  for  defense,  demand  delay  of  execution,  and 
in  either  case  report  to  your  Government  evidence  relied  on  to  support  death 
sentence. 

Mr.  Willis  to  Mr.  Gresham. 

[Telegram.] 

HONOLULU,  January  30,  1895  (San  Francisco,  February  6,  1895.) 
Revolt  over  9th.  Casualties :  Government  one,  royalist  two.  Court-mar 
tial  convened  I7th;  has  tried  38  cases;  200  more  to  be  tried,  and  daily  arrests. 
Gulick  former  minister,  and  Seward,  minister,  major  in  Federal  Army,  both 
Americans,  and  Rickard,  Englishman,  sentenced  to  death;  all  heretofore 
prominent  in  politics.  T.  B.  Walker,  formerly  in  the  United  States  Army, 
imprisoned  for  life  and  $5,000  fine.  Other  sentences  not  -disclosed,  but  will 
probably  be  death.  Requested  copies  of  record  for  our  Government  to  deter 
mine  its  duty  before  final  sentence,  but  no  answer  yet.  Bitter  feeling  and  threats 
of  mob  violence  which  arrival  of  Philadelphia  yesterday  may  prevent.  Lili- 
uokalani  made  prisoner  on  loth ;  on  24th  relinquished  all  claims  and  swore 
allegiance  Republic,  imploring  clemency  for  Hawaiians.  Government  replies 
to  Liliuokalani,  "  This  document  can  not  be  taken  to  exempt  you  in  the 


294  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

slightest  degree  from  personal  and  individual  liability"  for  complicity  in  late 
conspiracy.  Denies  that  she  had  any  rights  since  January  14,  1893,  when  she 
attempted  new  constitution.  "  Fully  appreciates  her  call  to  disaffected  to 
recognize  Republic,  and  will  give  full  consideration  to  her  unselfish  appeal 
for  clemency "  for  participants. 

ALBERT  S.  WILLIS. 

Mr.  HALE.     Will  the   Senator  from  California  allow  me? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  HALE.  Mr.  President,  nothing  can  so  strongly  emphasize 
the  need  of  the  most  direct  and  swiftest  communication  between  this 
country  and  the  Sandwich  Islands  as  the  documents  which  have  just 
been  presented  to  the  Senate.  What  events,  tragic  and  melancholy, 
may  occur  before  the  dispatches  which  have  been  sent  from  the 
State  Department  to  our  minister  reach  him  no  man  can  tell.  I  should 
say  that  every  Senator  here,  whatever  may  have  been  his  feeling 
heretofore  about  the  situation  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands  and  the  con 
troversies  which  have  arisen,  must  now  feel  the  deepest  regret  that 
the  Government  there,  under  whatever  emergencies  it  may  be,  is  sub 
jected  to  any  temptation  to  a  line  of  ultra  severity  such  as  might  not 
be  sustained  by  the  humane  sentiment  of  the  world.  I  only  wish 
that  the  agitation  of  this  cable  project  had  come  earlier,  in  order 
that  the  message  sent  by  the  Secretary  of  State  to  our  minister  might 
be  communicated  to  the  authorities  of  the  Sandwich  Islands,  so  that 
extreme  measures,  such  as  will  not  be  justified  by  American  senti 
ment,  will  not  be  resorted  to. 

Mr.  FRYE.     Will  the  Senator  from  California  allow  me? 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  Does  the  Senator  from  Cali 
fornia  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Maine? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  yield  to  the  Senator  from  Maine,  as  I  did  to 
his  colleague. 

Mr.  FRYE.  My  colleague  did  not  mention  the  fact  that  the 
date  of  this  dispatch  from  Mr.  Willis  is  nine  or  ten  days  ago  or  a 
little  more,  and  that  the  dispatch  has  just  reached  here;  and  my 
colleague  did  not  state,  what  is  true,  that  the  steamer  for  the  Sand 
wich  Islands  sailed  last  Tuesday  morning,  I  think,  and  that  another 
will  not  sail  for  a  week  after,  and  that  it  will  be  ten  days  at  least 
before  that  direction  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  his 
minister  will  reach  him,  making  about  twenty  or  thirty  days  to  get 
any  notice,  no  matter  how  important  the  event,  to  his  minister  and 
from  his  minister.  I  think  that  emphasizes  very  distinctly  the 
importance  of  a  cable. 

Mr.  HALE.     Undoubtedly. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  do  not  wish  to  interfere  with  the  speech  of 
the  Senator  from  California,  but  I  hope  he  will  allow  me  to  say  a 
word  about  the  President's  message 

Mr.  WHITE.  Certainly.  I  have  yielded  to  other  Senators, 
and  will  not  discriminate. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  notice  in  the  report  of  our  minister  that  two 
of  those  people  are  spoken  of  as  Americans.  They  are  not  said  to 
be  American  citizens,  and  I  should  presume  they  are  citizens  of  the 
Hawaiian  Republic.  I  observe  that  in  the  dispatch  which  the  Gov 
ernment  sends  to  the  minister  they  speak  of  the  protection  of  Ameri 
can  citizens.  I  know  we  have  no  right,  treating  those  people  as  a 
nation,  to  say  that  they  may  not  proceed  against  their  own  citizens, 
if  their  own  citizens  have  committed  crimes  against  their  law,  but  I 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  295 

think  it  would  be  well,  and  I  should  like  to  make  that  suggestion, 
for  the  Government  of  the  United  States  to  go  to  the  extent  of 
asking  the  Hawaiian  Government  to  suspend  all  harsh  operations, 
such  as  inflicting  the  death  penalty  even  upon  their  own  citizens,  until 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  can  confer  with  them  with 
reference  thereto. 

Mr.  President,  we  went  through  a  great  civil  war,  the  greatest 
known  to  history,  and  we  did  not  find  it  necessary  to  execute  any 
body  when  we  got  through. 

Mr.  HALE.     Not  a  single  man. 

Mr.  TELLER.  Not  a  single  person.  I  do  not  think  the 
emeute,  or  whatever  it  is  called,  which  has  occurred  in  Hawaii  will 
justify  those  people  in  the  harsh  methods  on  which  they  seem  to  have 
started.  I  hope  the  Government  of  the  United  States  will  take  prompt 
steps  to  see  that  those  people,  although  they  may  be  citizens  of 
Hawaii,  are  not  executed  in  a  manner  that  will  shock  the  civilized 
world. 

I  do  not  know  that  we  could  afford  to  give  any  direction  to  the 
State  Department,  but  if  there  are  any  members  of  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations  present,  and  I  see  one  before  me,  the  Senator  from 
Maine  [Mr.  FRYE],  I  should  like  to  suggest  that  the  committee  con 
sult  the  Department,  and  see  if  some  suggestions  can  not  be  made 
by  our  Government  in  a  friendly  way,  and  in  a  proper  way,  to  the 
Government  of  Hawaii  to  the  effect  that  they  do  not  proceed  to  the 
extreme  measure  which  it  is  indicated  in  the  dispatch  from  the  min 
ister  that  they  may  take. 

Mr.  SQUIRE.  Will  the  Senator  from  California  [Mr.  WHITE] 
yield  to  me  for  a  moment? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  give  notice  that  even  unanimous  consent  on 
the  part  of  the  Senate  will  not  get  the  floor  again.  I  yield  to  the 
Senator  from  Washington,  however.  I  shall  be  brief  in  what  I  have 
to  say. 

Mr.  SQUIRE.  With  the  permission  and  by  the  courtesy  of  the 
Senator  from  California  I  desire  to  ask  the  Senator  from  Colorado 
[Mr.  TELLER]  whether  he  is  in  favor  of  allowing  the  people  who 
have  been  interfering  with  the  existence  of  the  Government  in 
Hawaii  to  go  absolutely  untouched,  free,  or  whether  his  distinction 
is  that  he  wishes  them  to  be  tried  by  a  civil  tribunal  and  not  by  a 
military  tribunal. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  do  not  care  how  the  Government  there  shall 
proceed.  That  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question.  When  the 
Mexican  people  had  obtained  control  of  affairs  in  Mexico,  and  we 
supposed  they  were  about  to  execute  Maximilian,  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  intervened  in  a  friendly  way,  and  said  "  we  do 
not  think  you  ought  to  inflict  the  death  penalty."  That  is  all  I  pro 
pose  that  our  Government  shall  say  now.  We  can  not  say  that  the 
Hawaiian  Government  shall  not  punish  those  people ;  we  can  not  say 
they  shall  not  execute  them  if  they  see  fit;  but  a  suggestion  from 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  will  be  followed.  There  is  no 
danger  of  its  not  being  heeded. 

Mr.  FRYE.  But  they  can  hang  every  American  citizen  in  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  before  we  can  get  any  suggestions  to  them. 

Mr.  TELLER.     I  am  afraid  that  is  true. 

Mr.  HALE.     That  we  can  not  help. 

Mr.  TELLER.     We  can  not  help  that  until  we  get  a  cable. 


296  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  President,  there  is  one  feature  of  the 
Hawaiian  controversy  which  should  commend  itself  to  those  who 
desire  protracted  discussion,  namely,  that  when  a  particular  branch 
of  the  subject  becomes  threadbare  we  are  invariably  furnished  with 
something  new.  I  will  say  a  word  with  reference  to  the  dispatches 
which  have  just  been  read  as  soon  as  I  conclude  my  summary  of  the 
annexation  question. 

When  interrupted  I  was  attempting  to  show  the  Senate  that  the 
population  of  Hawaii  is  not  fitted  for  our  affiliation.  We  have 
endeavored  to  exclude  Chinese,  and  there  are  but  a  hundred  and  six 
or  a  hundred  and  seven  thousand  Chinese  now  in  the  United  States. 
Yet  it  is  proposed  to  acquire  territory  which  contains  a  Chinese  and 
Japanese  population  amounting  to  over  40,000  souls.  It  would  not 
be  beyond  the  truth  to  say  that  the  Chinese  and  Japanese  population 
which  would  thus  be  added  to  that  of  the  United  States  equals  two- 
fifths  of  the  Mongolians  within  our  borders.  The  people  whom  I  in 
part  represent  have  for  years  been  striving  to  exclude  this  competi 
tion,  and  a  few  misguided  individuals  in  different  parts  of  our  coun 
try  have,  because  of  the  prevalence  of  a  determined  sentiment  antago 
nistic  to  Chinese  attempted  to  drive  them  away  by  violence.  So 
dangerous  to  society  had  their  presence  become  that  both  nations 
reached  the  conclusion  that  it  was  essential  that  Chinese  immigration 
should  be  prohibited.  When  we  reflect  that  such  has  been  our  legis 
lation  and  such  our  history,  without  a  break  in  the  continuity  of  the 
story,  it  is  manifest  that  it  would  be  utterly  inconsistent  and  even 
iniquitous  to  absorb  the  very  elements  against  whose  presence  we 
have  so  long  and  so  earnestly  contended. 

Why  should  we  invite  those  whom  we  have  driven  away?  Will 
the  Chinamen  from  Hawaii  be  any  better  than  the  Chinamen  who 
have  come  from  Hongkong?  The  Japanese  population  of  the 
islands  is  not  of  an  exalted  character.  It  is  a  coolie  population.  It 
is  a  population  formed  of  the  very  lowest  class  of  Japanese  sub 
jects,  and  yet  Senators  tell  me  that  they  are  willing  to  bring  within 
this  Republic  a  serf  contribution  wholly  incapacitated  for  intelligent 
government.  The  claim  made  by  the  present  Republic  of  Hawaii, 
if  it  is  such,  is  that  all  save  the  selected  few  are  not  fit  to  vote,  and 
the  argument  of  Mr.  Stevens,  when  defending  his  course  in  a  speech 
made  in  Boston,  is  based  upon  the  assumption  that  the  vast  majority 
of  the  island  inhabitants  are  grossly  ignorant. 

The  Senator  from  South  Dakota  [Mr.  KYLE:]  reiterates  that 
statement  today.  He  tells  us  that  the  natives  have  no  will.  They 
are  perhaps  human,  made  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  their  Maker, 
but  according  to  my  friend  the  infusion  of  missionary  principles 
has  left  the  convert  Avithout  the  ability  to  think  or  to  act  pursuant 
to  desire.  Hence,  it  is  urged  they  need  not  be  consulted. 

Are  we,  then,  anxious  for  a  population  of  that  kind,  even  though 
it  be  true  that  the  island  soil  is  productive,  even  though  it  be  true, 
as  stated  by  the  Senator  from  South  Dakota  [Mr.  PETTIGREW],  that 
all  one  has  to  do  in  the  Hawaiian  group  to  make  a  living  is  to  plant 
a  banana  and  steal  a  fish  line? 

Is  it  wise  to  annex  territory  thus  inhabited?  Have  we  not 
problems  pressing  upon  us  every  day,  appealing  to  us  every  hour 
with  reference  to  the  incapacity  of  many  who  are  now  in  the  United 
States?  Do  we  not  know  that  our  immigration  laws  are  being 
daily  made  stronger,  so  that  we  may  be  able  to  exclude  those  who 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  297 

are  not  fitted  by  disposition,  education,  or  surroundings  to  appre- 
ciatingly  share  in  the  blessings  of  that  equal  liberty  which  can  be 
safely  exercised  only  by  men  of  sound  mind  and  honest  heart?  Does 
anyone  pretend  to  me  that  the  presence  of  these  people  will  add  to 
our  strength  or  our  glory?  Grant  that  the  few  who  set  up  and 
maintain,  and  who  in  my  opinion  will  maintain,  that  Republic  are 
educated  gentlemen,  persons  guided  by  the  best  of  motives  and 
possessing  all  of  the  qualifications  for  American  citizenship;  still  the 
limited  number  can  not  be  included  without  the  presence  also  of  the 
vast  horde  of  incompetents.  Mr.  President,  the  undesirable  element 
now  here  can  not  be  augmented  without  increased  peril. 

Someone  has  suggested  that  the  islands  be  annexed  to  the  State 
of  California.  Mr.  President,  think  of  it!  Islands  as  remote  from 
the  Pacific  Coast  as  Ireland  is  from  New  York.  Annexed  to  dom 
inate  our  politics,  to  control  our  elections,  to  dictate  who  shall  sit 
in  our  executive  chair,  who  shall  compose  our  legislature,  who  shall 
go  to  Congress!  Where  is  the  guaranty  that  none  but  qualified 
citizens  shall  vote?  I  am  opposed  to  the  annexation  of  any  country 
within  which  the  preponderating  element  of  the  population  is 
ignorant,  or  criminal,  or  corrupt.  I  do  not  wish  to  see  as  a  part 
of  this  Republic  any  land  whatever  where  the  vast  majority  are 
unlettered  and  unable  to  accurately  and  carefully  weigh  and  truly 
decide  the  questions  presented  for  their  political  adjudication! 

These  to  me  are  determinative  arguments.  I  can  not  avoid 
them.  You  may  say  that  the  Chinese  and  Japanese  can  not  vote ; 
you  may,  however  unjustly,  exclude  the  natives,  but  even  then  you 
do  not  meet  the  objection  that  I  have  urged  against  the  incorporation 
of  a  community  but  a  small  portion  of  which  knows  anything  of 
governmental  affairs.  Nor  is  it  accurate  to  say,  as  stated  by  the 
Senator  from  Colorado  [Mr.  TELLER],  that  the  doctrines  of  the 
Democratic  party  have  always  been  in  favor  of  foreign  acquisitions. 
It  is  not  true,  either,  that  Mr.  Jefferson  ever  advocated  the  annex 
ation  of  territory  circumstanced  as  is  Hawaii.  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  a 
letter  to  President  Madison,  dated  April  27,  1809,  which  can  be 
found  in  the  fifth  volume  of  Jefferson's  Works,  page  443,  in  speak 
ing  of  Cuba,  said : 

It  will  be  objected  to  our  receiving  Cuba  that  no  limit  can  then  be  drawn 
to  our  future  acquisitions.  Cuba  can  be  defended  by  us  without  a  navy,  and 
this  develops  the  principle  which  ought  to  limit  our  views.  Nothing  should 
ever  be  accepted  which  would  require  a  navy  to  defend  it. 

And  so  Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  at  a  later  day,  in  stating  the  policy 
which  had  controlled  our  Government  in  this  direction,  said: 

The  policy  of  this  Government,  as  declared  on  many  occasions  in  the  past, 
has  tended  toward  avoidance  of  possessions  disconnected  from  the  main  con 
tinent.  Had  the  tendency  of  the  United  States  been  to  extend  territorial 
dominion  beyond  intervening  seas,  opportunities  have  not  been  wanting  to 
effect  such  a  purpose,  whether  on  the  coast  of  Africa,  in  the  West  Indies,  or 
in  the  South  Pacific.  No  such  opportunity  has  been  hitherto  embraced,  and 
but  little  hope  could  be  offered  that  Congress,  which  must  in  the  ultimate 
resort  be  brought  to  decide  the  question  of  such  transmarine  jurisdiction, 
would  favorably  regard  such  an  acquisition  as  His  Excellency  proposes.  At 
any  rate,  in  its  political  aspect  merely,  this  Government  is  unprepared  to 
accept  the  proposition  without  subjection  to  such  wishes  as  Congress  and  the 
people  of  the  United  States  through  Congress  may  see  fit  to  express. 

Thus  has  it  been  ever  declared  by  our  Department  of  State  that 
it  is  contrary  to  our  views  of  good  policy  to  incorporate  any  section 
20 


298  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

which  can  not  be  well  defended  without  a  nayy.  As  I  have  stated, 
Mr.  Jefferson  placed  his  adhesion  to  the  Cuban  proposition  dis 
tinctly  upon  the  ground  that  no  navy  would  ever  be  demanded  for  its 
protection  because  of  its  proximity  to  the  mainland.  Yet,  sir,  it  is 
sought  now  to  acquire  dominion  over  islands  more  than  2,000  miles 
from  our  shores  —  islands  whose  defense  would  necessitate  the 
employment  of  an  independent  and  powerful  navy. 

This  is  an  issue  of  policy.  There  is  no  analogy,  as  supposed  by 
the  Senator  from  South  Dakota  [Mr.  KYLE],  in  the  Alaskan  acqui 
sition.  Alaska  is  a  part  of  the  mainland,  separated  from  us,  it  is 
true,  by  the  British  possessions,  but  I  imagine  there  never  will  be 
a  race  inhabiting  that  land  which  will  care  to  contend  in  arms  with 
our  nation,  or  with  which  any  foreign  nation  will  ever  care  to 
engage.  Alaska  is  by  nature  equipped  for  self-defense  and  even 
exclusion.  It  is  valuable  to  us,  perhaps,  because  of  the  minerals 
yet  unmined  and  the  many  other  productions  useful  to  man  which 
were  so  well  and  specifically  described  by  the  Senator  from  Oregon 
[Mr.  MITCHELL]  in  an  elaborate  and  able  presentation  made  here 
some  days  ago.  But,  however  this  may  be,  however  difficult  (and  I 
recognize  the  difficulty  of  announcing  any  absolute  rule  upon  a  sub 
ject  which  after  all  is  but  a  matter  of  policy),  it  is  plain  to  me  that 
it  will  add  nothing  to  our  dignity,  our  efficiency,  our  grandeur  as  a 
nation,  or  the  liberties  of  our  people  to  annex  such  a  population  as 
that  which  is  contained  within  the  Sandwich  Islands. 

Mr.  SQUIRE.  I  should  like  to  ask  the  Senator  from  Califor 
nia  a  question.  I  have  listened  to  what  he  has  read  and  what  he 
has  stated  so  earnestly  and  forcibly  today  with  great  interest,  and  I 
believe  the  subject  is  one  deserving  of  very  serious  consideration. 
I  ask  the  Senator  whether  the  doctrine  laid  down  by  him  and  coward 
which  he  has  brought  the  support  of  the  great  names  he  has  adduced 
would  have  prevailed  had  the  conditions  existing  at  the  present  day 
in  regard  to  vessels  of  the  Navy,  both  the  commercial  and  military 
marine,  existed  in  those  earlier  days  of  the  Republic.  It  is  well 
known  and  understood  now  that  vessels  of  war  can  not  proceed  upon 
long  voyages  without  frequent  coaling.  The  rate  of  speed  required 
for  such  vessels  in  order  to  give  them  efficiency,  and  the  distances 
they  must  traverse  require  that  they  shall  have  coaling  stations. 
Now,  this  is  a  condition  of  things  that  did  not  exist  when  the  Navy 
was  composed  largely  of  sailing  vessels.  The  same  is  true  in  regard 
to  the  commercial  marine  in  a  great  degree. 

I  ask  the  Senator  from  California  whether  the  present  con 
ditions  are  not  such  as  to  tend  largely  to  modify  the  doctrine  he  has 
laid  down  in  regard  to  the  acquisition  of  territory  that  can  only  be 
defended  by  means  of  an  American  Navy?  Does  he  not  conceive 
it  essential  to  the  very  existence  and  efficiency  of  the  Navy  that 
we  shall  have  coaling  stations  for  the  Navy,  and  is  it  not  just  as 
necessary  to  provide  the  means  for  the  transportation  of  those  vessels, 
the  fuel  necessary,  as  it  is  to  provide  the  ammunition  for  the  cannon 
they  bear?  Is  it  not  just  as  essential  that  there  shall  be  a  requisite 
coaling  station  for  the  supplies  of  the  vessels  of  our  Navy  as  to  have 
the  ammunition  that  is  carried  to  supply  the  guns  that  they  bear  for 
the  purpose  of  action?  Could  we  not  in  this  respect  profitably 
imitate  the  policy  of  the  British  nation,  that  great  maritime  power 
whose  navy  dominates  the  globe  and  whose  policy  in  some  other 
and  less  desirable  respects  receives  such  servile  imitation  by  some 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  299 

of  our  people  —  who  can  see  nothing  in  the  line  of  progress  and 
development  that  should  shape  our  policy,  especially  as  to  the  tariff 
question,  unless  it  be  on  the  line  of  English  ideas  —  yet  those  very 
people  will  not  accept  the  example  of  England  as  to  the  necessary 
coaling  stations  for  its  Navy  and  for  commerce.  If  we  can  not  have 
our  own  coaling  stations  why  expend  millions  of  dollars  per  annum 
to  build  and  equip  a  navy?  I  venture  to  maintain  that  the  situation 
today  is  vastly  different  as  to  our  Navy  from  what  it  was  in  the 
days  of  Jefferson,  from  whose  works  the  extract  has  been  quoted  by 
the  Senator  from  California. 

Mr.  WHITE.     Is   the   Senator   from   Washington   through? 

Mr.  SQUIRE      I  am. 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  question  addressed  to  me  by  the  Senator 
from  Washington  would  be  a  very  pertinent  one  were  I  speaking 
of  coaling  stations,  and  under  our  very  liberal  rules  I  presume  I 
might  discuss  on  the  pending  amendment  coaling  stations,  or  whaling 
stations,  or  any  other  stations.  I  will  simply  say  incidentally,  how 
ever,  in  response  to  the  Senator's  remark,  that  I  presume  there  will 
be  no  difficulty  in  establishing  coaling  stations  even  if  we  do  not  own 
the  places  where  such  stations  are  located.  In  our  partnership 
entered  into  with  two  monarchical  governments  we  have  managed  to 
secure  a  station  in  Samoa,  and  I  believe  we  have  arrangements  in 
Hayti  to  the  same  purport.  We  have  also  Pearl  Harbor  in  Hawaii. 
However,  if  my  friend  from  Washington  will  read  the  very  able 
remarks  of  the  Senator  from  South  Dakota  [Mr.  PETTIGREW]  upon 
this  subject  he  will  find  that  the  coaling  station  which  has  been 
described  so  glowingly  in  the  debates  here  does  not  amount  to  very 
much ;  that  it  is  rather  superfluous,  and  not  even  ornamental. 

Concerning  the  remark  of  the  Senator  from  Washington  to  the 
effect  that  the  policy  of  Great  Britain  should  be  imitated  in  the 
matter  of  acquiring  territory  and  not  as  to  tariff  legislation,  I  do 
not  hesitate  to  affirm  that  I  am  not  disposed  to  send  our  Navy  upon 
a  career  of  conquest  or  to  do  anything  else  opposed  to  our  ideas 
of  free  government  and  to  our  notions  of  human  rights.  A  study 
of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  and  the  Farewell  Address  of 
Washington  might  be  read  with  advantage.  We  are  not  discussing 
England's  tariff  laws,  but  I  might  say  that  we  find  much  difficulty 
under  our  system  in  our  efforts  to  divert  from  England  the  profitable 
commerce  of  the  world. 

I  might,  in  further  response  to  the  Senator  from  Washington, 
urge  that  if  the  very  distinguished  men  whose  views  I  have  read  had 
had  before  them  the  prevailing  Hawaiian  conditions  they  would  have 
strenuously  protested  against  annexation.  Moreover,  in  Jefferson's 
and  even  in  Marcy's  time  little  was  known  of  the  embarrassments 
of  Chinese  immigration ;  the  sharp  and  ruinous  competition  in  labor 
lines  which  has  resulted  from  the  presence  of  Mongolians.  The 
numerous  questions  now  before  us  concerning  which  labor  and  capital 
play  so  prominent  a  part  were  then  but  casually  considered.  Many 
economic  problems  most  difficult  to  solve  have  come  to  the  front 
within  a  recent  period. 

To  conclude  this  branch  of  the  subject  and  to  summarize :  I  am 
antagonistic  to  the  annexation  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands  because  of 
their  remoteness  and  more  particularly  because  of  their  undesirable 
population.  I  am  unwilling  to  introduce  a  political  factor  of  that 


300  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

sort  within  the  United  States.  I  do  not  intend  to  aid  in  permitting 
Hawaiian  precincts  to  control  California  elections. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  the  cable  issue  is  not  necessarily  dependent 
for  its  solution  upon  our  ideas  of  annexation,  or  upon  our  views  of 
coaling  stations;  but  whether  we  should  have  a  cable  connecting  this 
country  with  the  Hawaiian  Islands  is  a  matter  that  should  be  deter 
mined  upon  commercial  considerations  and  in  view  of  commercial 
developments,  and  also  because  of  the  desirability  of  speedy  and 
independent  communication  with  the  Orient.  I  know  that  the  people 
of  California  are  in  favor  of  this  project.  It  is  the  general  desire 
in  that  part  of  the  Union  that  there  should  be  telegraphic  connection 
with  Hawaii  now,  which  will  lead,  I  believe,  to  an  extension  ultimately 
to  Yokohama.  The  city  of  San  Francisco  is  very  nearly  on  the 
same  parallel  with  the  city  of  Tokio.  The  most  direct  route  from 
San  Francisco  to  Japan  lies,  of  course,  north  of  Honolulu.  It  is 
some  2,080  miles  from  one  port  to  the  other.  But  a  cable  laid  to  the 
Hawaiian  Islands  and  thence  to  Asia  would  be  of  vast  utility.  It  is 
true  that  such  a  scheme  involves  the  expenditure  of  much  money. 
If  the  Committee  on  Appropriations  considers  that  at  this  time  we 
can  afford  to  inaugurate  such  an  enterprise  —  and  such  is  the  effect 
of  that  committee's  amendment  —  I  shall  not  object.  I  do  not  con 
sider,  as  I  have  said,  that  the  cable  and  annexation  plans  are  at  all 
interdependent. 

We  have  now  no  telegraphic  communication  with  Asia  except 
such  as  we  are  able  to  enjoy  at  the  option  of  other  nations.  If  we 
owned  an  Asiatic  cable  profitable  arrangements  could  be  made  with 
Russia  and  Great  Britain  with  reference  to  European  and  Australian 
business. 

A  short  time  back  our  friends  of  the  other  side,  who  always 
criticise  the  President,  informed  us  that  the  proposition  contained 
in  the  recent  message  with  reference  to  the  landing  of  Great  Britain's 
cable  at  Necker  Island  should  not  be  countenanced;  that  it  was 
another  diplomatic  blunder,  etc.  The  Senator  from  Connecticut 
[Mr.  PLATT]  read  the  remarks  of  the  President  of  the  United  States 
upon  a  former  occasion  with  reference  to  cable  communication  with 
Honolulu  and  there  was  nothing  therein  at  all  antagonistic  to  the 
present  programme.  I  desire  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  when 
Mr.  Cleveland  has  recommended  the  adoption  of  a  policy  differing 
from  that  desired  by  the  Government  at  Honolulu  he  has  been 
attacked  for  so  doing;  and  in  the  present  instance,  when  he  asked 
the  Senate  to  acquiesce  in  the  request  of  that  infant  Republic,  to  do 
that  which  the  Dole  cabinet  has  requested,  he  is  again  made  the 
subject  of  animadversions.  Let  us  be  consistent. 

I  think  that  the  message  of  the  President  in  that  connection 
speaks  for  and  justifies  itself.  Congress  had  made  no  effort  to  lay 
an  American  cable.  Congress  has  heretofore  done  nothing  indicating 
any  disposition  to  connect  with  the  islands.  Under  these  conditions 
we  are  asked  to  waive  our  right  to  object  to  the  granting  of  Eng 
land's  request. 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  imagine  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  will  go  to  pieces  if  the  additional  commercial  facilities 
tendered  by  Great  Britain  are  furnished.  I  do  not  believe  that  any 
vast  advantage  will  accrue  to  England  if  she  is  allowed  to  land  her 
cable  as  designed,  so  far  as  any  trade  competition  between  that  Gov 
ernment  and  ours  is  concerned.  I  think  it  is  absolutely  certain, 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  301 

because  of  the  location  of  the  Hawaiian  group  with  reference  to  the 
United  States,  that  their  commerce  must  come  to  the  western  coast 
of  this  country.  Self-interest  on  the  part  of  the  islanders  requires  it. 
Certainly,  while  our  present  treaty  with  reference  to  sugar  matters 
exists  it  is  plain  that,  cable  or  no  cable,  we  will  continue  to  dominate 
commerce  there.  But  I  agree  that  the  cable  will  be  beneficial.  I  am 
confident  that  with  the  extension  to  which  I  have  referred  we  will 
profit  by  the  work.  The  illustration  given  today  is  very  significant. 
If  such  a  line  existed  we  would  be  able  to  determine  in  short  order 
whether  it  is  our  duty  to  interfere  in  the  cases  of  those  reported  to 
have  been  condemned  by  an  autocratic  military  tribunal. 

While  such  reasoning  might  be  invoked  with  reference  to  any 
country  in  which  an  emergency  has  suddenly  arisen,  that  fact  would 
not  lessen  our  satisfaction  were  we  able  to  enjoy  telegraphic  inter 
course  at  this  moment. 

However,  the  commercial  advantages  which  will  ultimately 
attend  the  construction  and  extension  of  a  cable  system  to  Honolulu 
are  such  that  I  do  not  feel  justified  in  opposing  the  appropriation, 
and  I  intend  to  vote  for  it.  I  concede  that  it  will  require  a  great 
outlay  to  complete  the  project,  but  I  rely  upon  a  corresponding 
benefit. 

I  have  not  overlooked  the  constitutional  objections  which  were 
so  fully  urged  here  with  regard  to  Nicaragua  and  have  been  repeated 
in  this  debate.  I  do  not  wish  to  add  to  the  argument  I  used  in  con 
sideration  of  the  canal  bill.  I  do  not  believe  that  there  is  any  jus 
tification  for  the  theory  that  we  have  not  the  power  to  thus  guard 
our  commercial  and  governmental  interests.  We  can  extend  our 
commercial  relations,  we  can  lay  a  cable  wherever  we  find  it  essential 
to  do  so.  The  legislative  department  has  the  jurisdiction  to  do 
whatever  will  extend,  advance,  and  regulate  our  commerce  and 
increase  our  capabilities  for  common  defense. 

I  concur  with  Senators  who  have  stated  that  this  is  a  nation 
vested  with  full  power  as  such.  It  is  not  half  a  nation  or  two-thirds 
of  a  nation.  We  can  not  afford  to  place  the  Republic  in  an  inferior 
position  as  contrasted  with  the  great  powers  of  this  world.  Every 
American  citizen  would  shrink  from  such  an  attempt,  and  would 
warmly  repudiate  such  a  conclusion.  To  concede  otherwise  would 
be  to  say  that  there  is  somewhere  another  Government  which  is 
more  powerful,  self-respecting,  and  enlightened  than  ours ;  and 
more  nearly  competent  to  so  administer  public  affairs  as  to  promote 
the  permanent  happiness  of  the  people.  No  such  doctrine  can  ever 
have  my  support.  Nor  do  I  find  any  justification  for  such  a  theory 
either  in  the  language  of  the  Constitution  or  in  the  interpretations 
of  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  which  have  become  crystallized  into  per 
manency  by  the  passage  of  time  and  the  experience  of  intelligent 
patriots. 

Mr.  President,  the  message  which  has  just  reached  us,  and  which 
recites  the  sentences  of  a  military  tribunal  in  Honolulu,  discloses 
a  deplorable  condition. 

I  know  that  my  humane  friend  from  South  Dakota  [Mr. 
KYLE],  who  addressed  us  this  morning,  and  spoke  of  the  soothing 
influence  of  missionary  contact,  will  be  somewhat  horrified  when  he 
discovers  that  the  characteristics  of  barbarism  have  been  thus  early 
disclosed  in  the  first  struggle  for  power  by  the  newly  constituted 
Republic.  Undoubtedly  any  Government  making  any  claim  to  be 


302  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

such,  assumes  the  right  to  enforce  law,  and  may  visit  extreme 
penalty  upon  those  who  by  violent  overt  act  dispute  its  nationality 
and  seek  to  possess  themselves  of  dominion  and  supremacy. 

But,  Mr.  President,  as  was  well  stated  by  the  Senator  from 
Colorado,  the  United  States  passed  through  an  unexampled  civil 
war,  and  did  not  find  it  necessary  in  a  single  instance  to  resort  to 
the  imposition  of  the  death  penalty  for  traitorous  conduct.  I  can 
not  believe  that  the  sentences  which  have  been  thus  announced  have 
been  imposed  with  intent  that  they  shall  be  carried  out.  The  letter 
of  the  law  has  been  probably  adopted  and  commutations  will  no 
doubt  follow.  I  do  not  think  that  these  sentences  mean  any  more 
than  the  expression  upon  the  part  of  those  in  authority  that  they 
have  the  power  to  do  those  things  which  nationality  implies  whether 
represented  by  a  king,  a  president,  or  what  not.  I  will  not  tolerate 
the  thought  that  anyone  who  has  the  slightest  conception  of  free 
government  would  under  such  surroundings  convict  and  execute  by 
wholesale.  Mr.  D'ole's  position  is  such  that  he  can  not  afford  to  be 
otherwise  than  merciful.  When  the  Queen  was  deposed,  and  when 
she  made  a  threat  which  the  country  construed  into  an  intimation 
that  she  would  execute  those  who  had  risen  against  her  if  she 
became  once  more  possessed  of  the  throne,  all  denounced  her  as 
bloodthirsty.  There  is  not  a  Senator  in  this  Chamber  and  no  one 
connected  with  this  Government  who  would  not,  had  she  made  such 
an  attempt,  have  used  all  proper  effort  to  prevent  the  carrying  out 
of  her  resolve. 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  I  would  most  cheer 
fully  vote  for  a  resolution  expressive  of  the  opinion  of  the  Senate 
that  those  who  have  been  taken  into  custody  by  the  Hawaiian  Gov 
ernment  and  who  have  been  thus  sentenced  should  be  dealt  with 
leniently.  In  view  of  the  unsettled  conditions  prevailing,  in  view 
of  the  infirmities  of  human  passion,  having  regard  to  the  future  of 
the  Republic,  the  authorities  of  Hawaii  should  not  be  hasty.  An 
enduring  republic  must  be  builded  upon  something  more  solid  than 
a  foundation  laid  in  blood,  even  though  it  be  the  blood  of  the 
revolutionist  who  but  a  few  months  past  was  the  representative  of  a 
Government  overthrown  by  the  men  who  now  render  judgment. 

Mr.  President,  these  occurrences  are  regrettable.  It  is  to  be 
hoped  that  in  the  midst  of  this  disturbance  wise  counsels  will 
prevail,  that  the  abdication  of  the  Queen,  her  written  and  formal 
renunciation,  will  prevent  further  disorder.  The  Dole  Government 
must  be  aware  that  resistance  is  over  and  that  ultimate  punish 
ments  are  not  required.  Caution  is  ever  to  be  observed  in  matters 
affecting  human  life,  and  an  error  now  would  have  serious  con 
sequences.  While  we  have  no  authority  to  affirm  that  a  foreign 
government  shall  not  enforce  its  laws,  still,  under  the  peculiar  cir 
cumstances  environing  this  subject,  an  intimation  to  Mr.  Dole  may 
not  be  amiss. 

But,  Mr.  President,  if  those  who  have  been  sentenced  are  Ameri 
can  citizens,  if  it  be  true  that  they  were  not  actually  participants  in 
an  attempt  to  overthrow  the  Government,  or  even  then,  if  they  have 
been  tried  and  found  guilty  by  a  summarily  organized  revolutionary 
or  military  tribunal,  trying  them  and  passing  upon  their  cases  in  the 
shadow  of  dangerous  conflict  —  under  either  of  those  conditions  I 
would  certainly  conceive  it  to  be  our  duty  to  intervene  and  to  inves 
tigate  most  closely  before  we  withdraw  our  interfering  hand. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  303 

The  communication  from  the  Executive  today  informs  us  that 
in  accordance  with  the  long-settled  practice  of  this  country  a  request 
has  been  made  for  information  and  notice  given  to  withhold  the 
consummation  and  carrying  out  of  the  sentence  imposed.  In  any 
event  this  precaution  is  timely. 

Mr.  President,  this  occurrence  has  tended  to  increase  interest 
in  the  cable  proposition.  I  am  persuaded  that  our  commerce  will 
be  advanced  by  this  expenditure.  I  appreciate  that  the  large  num 
ber  of  American  vessels  which  call  at  Honolulu  do  not  represent 
vast  trade  and  that  our  commerce  there  is  small  as  compared  with 
that  which  we  share  with  many  other  nations. 

I  repeat  that  we  must  in  the  end  go  further  than  Honolulu  to 
find  our  justification  for  this  disbursement  as  a  business  venture. 
But  a  commencement  must  be  made,  and  I  shall  vote  to  begin  now. 
Without  Government  aid  a  cable  will  not  be  laid  from  the  United 
States.  The  Senator  from  Rhode  Island  [Mr.  ALDRICH]  accurately 
remarked  that  private  parties  can  not  be  found  who  will  make  such 
an  investment,  as  quick  and  large  direct  returns  are  not  to  be 
expected. 

Mr.  President,  I  trust  that  we  will  maintain  the  doctrine  of  non 
interference  in  the  internal  affairs  of  Hawaii  declared  by  a  formal 
resolution  of  the  Senate;  that  we  will  prevent  foreign  interposition. 
And  I  am  convinced  that  the  Administration  will  continue  to  take 
such  action  as  may  secure  our  citizens  from  persecution  and  main 
tain  the  foreign  policy  which  wise  precedents  and  good  faith  justify 
and  require. 


RULES  OF  THE  SENATE 


SPEECH  DELIVERED 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
January  10,  1896. 

The  Senate  having  under  consideration  resolutions  proposing  certain 
amendments  to  the  rules 

PARLIAMENTARY    PROCEDURE    OF    THE    SENATE. 

Mr.  WHITE  said: 

Mr.  PRESIDENT:  I  desire  at  this  time  to  offer  a  few  remarks 
in  enforcement  of  the  position  of  those  Senators  who  have  heretofore 
insisted  that  there  should  be  changes  in  the  rules  of  the  Senate  look 
ing  to  the  more  logical  transaction  of  public  business.  I  ask  in  this 
connection  that  Senate  resolutions  14,  15,  and  16,  submitted  by  the 
Senator  from  New  York  [Mr.  HILL],  and  Senate  resolution  18,  sub 
mitted  by  me,  be  read  from  the  desk. 

The  VICE-PRESIDENT.  The  Secretary  will  read  as  indi 
cated. 

The  SECRETARY  read  as  follows: 

Amendment  intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  HILL  to  the  rules  of  the  Sen 
ate,  submitted  December  n,  1895: 

"Resolved,  That  subdivision  2  of  Rule  V  of  the  standing  rules  of  the  Sen 
ate  be,  and  the  same  is  hereby,  amended  so  as  to  read  as  follows: 

"  If  at  any  time  during  the  daily  sessions  of  the  Senate  a  question  shall  be 
raised  by  any  Senator  as  to  the  presence  of  a  quorum,  the  Presiding  Officer 
shall  forthwith  direct  the  Secretary  to  call  the  roll,  and  shall  announce  the 
result,  and  these  proceedings  shall  be  without  debate;  but  no  Senator,  while 
speaking,  shall  be  interrupted  by  any  other  Senator  raising  the  question  of 
the  lack  of  a  quorum,  and  the  question  as  to  the  presence  of  a  quorum  shall 
not  be  raised  oftener  than  once  in  every  hour,  but  this  provision  shall  not 
apply  where  the  absence  of  a  quorum  is  disclosed  upon  any  roll  call  of  the 
yeas  and  nays." 

Amendment  intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  HILL  to  the  rules  of  the  Sen 
ate,  submitted  December  n,  1895: 

"Resolved,  That  Rule  IX  be  amended  by  adding  thereto  the  following  sec 
tion  : 

" '  Sec.  2.  Whenever  any  bill  or  resolution  is  pending  before  the  Senate  as 
unfinished  business,  and  the  same  shall  have  been  debated  on  divers  days, 
amounting  in  all  to  thirty  days,  it  shall  be  in  order  for  any  Senator  at  any 
time  to  move  to  fix  a  time  for  the  taking  of  a  vote  upon  such  bill  or  resolution, 
and  such  motion  shall  not  be  amendable  or  debatable,  and  shall  be  immedi 
ately  put,  and  if  passed  by  a  majority  of  all  the  members  of  the  Senate  the  vote 
upon  such  bill  or  resolution,  with  all  the  amendments  thereto  which  may  be 
pending  at  the  time  of  such  motion,  shall  be  had  at  the  date  fixed  in  such 
original  motion  without  further  debate  or  amendment,  except  by  unanimous 
consent;  and  during  the  pendency  of  such  motion  to  fix  a  date  and  also  at  the 
time  fixed  by  the  Senate  for  voting  upon  bill  or  resolution  no  other  motion 
of  any  kind  or  character  shall  be  entertained  until  such  motion  or  such  bill  or 
resolution  shall  have  been  finally  voted  upon.' " 

Amendment  intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  HILL  to  the  rules  of  the  Sen 
ate,  submitted  December  n,  1895: 

304 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  305 

"Resolved,  That  Rule  XII  be  amended  by  inserting  an  additional  clause, 
as  follows : 

' '  When  upon  a  vote  by  yeas  and  nays  is  shall  appear  to  the  Presiding 
Officer,  upon  recapitulation  and  before  the  announcement  of  the  result,  that  a 
quorum  has  not  voted,  he  shall  call  upon  Senators  present  who  have  not  voted 
by  name  to  vote,  and  shall  direct  the  Secretary  to  add  to  the  list  of  the  Sen 
ators  voting  the  names  of  the  Senators  present  not  voting,  including  those 
announcing  pairs,  or  who  may  or  may  not  be  excused  from  voting,  and  to 
enter  the  same  in  the  Journal ;  and  if  the  whole  number  constitute  a  quorum, 
and  it  shall  appear  that  a  majority  of  a  quorum  (or  two-thirds  of  a  quorum 
where  the  Constitution  prescribes  a  majority  of  two-thirds)  has  voted  on  either 
side,  the  question  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  determined,  and  the  result 
shall  be  announced  the  same  as  if  a  quorum  had  voted.'  " 

Amendment  intended  to  be  proposed  by  Mr.  WHITE  to  the  rules  of  the 
Senate,  submitted  December  12,  1895  : 

"  Resolved,  That  Rule  XIX  be  amended  by  inserting  at  the  end  of  paragraph 
i  thereof  the  following :  '  All  debate  shall  be  relevant  and  confined  to  the  sub 
ject  directly  before  the  Senate.'  " 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  President,  during  the  last  Congress  many 
resolutions  suggesting  alterations  in  the  procedure  of  the  Senate 
were  introduced.  Several  were  to  the  purport  that  Senators  in 
addressing  the  Senate  should  be  confined  to  the  subject  under  inquiry; 
others  that  debates  should  be  restricted;  others  that  for  the  purpose 
of  making  a  quorum  every  Senator  actually  present,  or  at  least  sig 
nifying  such  presence  by  announcing  a  pair  or  otherwise,  should  be 
counted. 

So  many  propositions  emanating  from  so  many  able  sources  ought 
to  be  enough,  without  further  argument,  to  convince  us  that  material 
departures  from  our  present  procedure  must  be  desirable.  Error  long 
practiced  is  difficult  of  eradication.  Habits  grow  upon  us.  The 
ability  and  public  services  of  many  of  our  members  have  compelled 
their  return  here  time  and  time  again.  Pride,  indisposition  to  retract 
opinions  once  expressed,  unwillingness  to  accord  to  later  generations 
the  credit  of  improvement,  have  made  it  hard  to  effect  reforms.  More 
than  this,  the  more  venerable  Senators  have  viewed  as  semi-sacrilegious 
the  efforts  of  comparative  novices  to  vary  our  fossilized  processes. 
Perhaps  it  is  hopeless  to  attempt  the  task  now.  However,  I  am  some 
what  encouraged,  because  not  only  is  the  twentieth  century  approach 
ing,  but  I  note  that  some  of  those  who  have  heretofore  opposed  more 
businesslike  methods  have  changed  their  views  and  are  now  anxious 
for  revision. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  contains,  inter  alia,  the  fol 
lowing  : 

Each  House  may  determine  the  rules  of  its  proceedings,  etc.  (Article  I, 
section  5,  subdivision  2,  Constitution.) 

The  rules  now  in  existence,  as  far  as  mooted  points  are  concerned, 
were  formulated  at  a  very  early  date,  and  I  concede  that  the  onus 
of  showing  a  reason  for  alteration  is  upon  those  who  seek  to  bring 
it  about.  This  presumption  might,  indeed,  be  met  and  perhaps  over 
come  by  the  admitted  general  demand,  but  as  I  will  later  on  discuss 
the  effect  which  the  opinion  of  the  public,  and  especially  of  our 
constituents,  should  have  upon  our  acts,  I  will  not  now  avail  myself 
of  this  counter  presumption.  I  shall  endeavor  to  state  generally  the 
ground  upon  which  I  stand,  and  shall  refer  to  analogous  cases  and  to 
the  variable  and  peculiar  conditions  which  have  brought  about  pre 
vailing  embarrassments.  While  there  are  cogent  considerations 


306  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

justifying  many  modifications,  the  principal  defect,  as  I  presume  to 
term  it,  which  should  be  remedied  is  the  entire  omission  in  our 
so-called  rules  to  provide  for  the  bringing"  of  a  subject  to  a  vote 
otherwise  than  by  unanimous  consent;  because  as  long  as  a  Senator 
can  stand  up  and  talk,  and  read  or  have  read,  matters  relevant  and 
irrelevant,  the  question  can  not  be  put. 

Next  in  grade  descending  is  the  recognition  by  the  Senate  of  the 
ancient  but  not  honorable  fiction  that  a  majority  of  the  Senate  may  be 
in  the  Senate  and  yet  no  quorum  be  present,  and  that  although  a 
Senator  may  answer  a  roll  call  by  stating  that  he  is  paired  with 
another  Senator,  and  although  he  may  help  to  make  the  one-fifth  of 
those  present  who  demand  a  roll  call,  still,  in  conflict  with  his  asser 
tion  of  presence,  we,  with  eccentric  and  patient  indifference  to  the 
truth,  rule  that  he  is  not  here. 

Then  the  Senate  permits  unlimited  talk  —  discussion  it  is 
called — -upon  subjects  absolutely  and  completely,  entirely  and 
obviously,  foreign  to  the  bill  or  question  appearing  by  the  record  to 
be  pending.  It  is  interesting  to  know  that  at  an  early  date  the 
difficulties  which  now  confront  us  were  to  some  extent  felt.  We  are 
informed  by  Mr.  Schouler  (History  United  States,  volume  3,  page 
369)  that  Mr.  Randolph  during  the  last  years  of  his  public  service 
was  prone  to  wander  from  the  actual  question  to  which  his  remarks 
should  have  been  addressed.  In  speaking  of  the  Senate  this  author 
says : 

The  decorum  of  this  quiet  Chamber  was  outraged  as  never  before,  and 
Virginia  was  mortified  at  the  unseemly  exhibition.  As  a  thorn  in  the  flesh 
of  an  unpopular  Administration  Randolph  was  not  to  be  despised,  and  on  this 
account  perhaps  Calhoun  bore  gently  with  him,  watching  from  his  chair  the 
flow  of  poesy  and  vituperation  which  the  rules  of  the  Senate,  so  he  alleged, 
forbade  him  to  interrupt. 

I  find  by  referring  to  30  Niles's  Register,  pages  146-147,  that  the 
Senate  rescinded  the  then  existing  rule  which  vested  in  the  President 
the  appointment  of  the  Senate  committees  and  the  supervising  of  the 
Journal,  and  Mr.  Calhoun  made  an  elaborate  statement  in  connection 
with  this  action,  and  also  concerning  his  jurisdiction  to  confine  Sen 
ators  to  the  subject  of  debate.  His  argument  in  part  is  thus 
expressed  by  the  reporter: 

From  this  direction  which  the  debate,  in  some  degree,  took,  as  well  as 
from  what  has  been  said  without  these  walls,  it  becomes,  on  this  occasion, 
proper  that  I  should  state,  for  the  information  of  this  body,  the  construction 
that  the  Chair  has  put  on  the  sixth  and  seventh  rules  of  the  Senate.  They  are 
in  the  following  words : 

"  When  a  member  shall  be  called  to  order  he  shall  sit  down  until  the 
President  shall  have  determined  whether  he  is  in  order  or  not;  and  every 
question  of  order  shall  be  decided  by  the  President  without  debate;  but  if 
there  be  a  doubt  in  his  mind  he  may  call  for  the  sense  of  the  Senate. 

"  If  the  member  be  called  to  order  for  words  spoken,  the  exceptionable 
words  shall  immediately  be  taken  down  in  writing,  that  the  President  may  be 
better  enabled  to  judge  of  the  matter." 

The  Chair,  said  the  Vice-President,  has  bestowed  its  most  deliberate  and 
anxious  attention  by  night  and  by  day  on  the  question  of  the  extent  of  its 
powers  under  a  correct  construction  of  these  rules,  and  is  settled  in  the  con 
viction  that  the  right  to  call  to  order  on  questions  touching  the  latitude  or 
freedom  of  debate  belongs  exclusively  to  the  members  of  this  body  and  not 
to  the  Chair.  The  power  of  the  presiding  officer  on  these  great  points  is  an 
appellate  power  only,  and  consequently  the  duties  of  the  Chair  commence 
when  a  Senator  is  called  to  order  by  a  Senator.  Whenever  such  a  call  shall 
be  made,  the  Chair  will  not  be  found  unprepared  to  discharge  its  only  func- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  307 

tions  in  such  a  case — that  of  deciding  on  the  point  of  order  submitted.  And 
the  opinion  of  the  presiding  officer  in  relation  to  the  freedom  of  debate  in  this 
body  it  will  be  time  to  declare  when  a  question  may  be  presented;  but  such 
as  it  is,  it  will  be  firmly  and,  I  trust  I  may  add,  fearlessly  maintained. 

Mr.  Schouler  also  writes  that  in  the  course  of  the  next  Congress, 
in  1828,  the  Senate  gave  to  the  Vice-President  concurrent  power  in 
calling  members  to  order,  subject  to  appeal  from  his  decision. 

We  all  know  that  this  prerogative  is  never  exercised  by 
either  the  Senate  or  Vice-President  in  so  far  as  it  refers  to  the 
obligation  to  keep  within  the  limits  of  the  question  under  discussion. 
Matters  which  are  germain  and  matters  which  are  not  germain  seem 
to  be  alike  in  order  here.  I  believe  that  even  under  our  rules,  prop 
erly  construed,  Senators  should  be  required  to  adhere  to  the  question; 
but  the  contrary  practice  prevails,  and  will  only  be  corrected  by 
positive  prohibition. 

THE   ANTIQUITY   OF   OUR  RULES    DOES    NOT   INHIBIT  THEIR   AMENDMENT. 

In  examining  this  question  it  is  fair  to  admit  that  rules  which 
have  been  in  operation  during  such  an  extended  period,  and  have 
been  found  frequently  competent  to  discharge  the  functions  for  which 
they  were  designed,  should  not  lightly  be  set  aside.  That  a  plan  of 
action  has  been,  for  a  period,  found  advantageous  suffices,  perhaps, 
to  make  out  a  prima  facie  case  in  its  favor.  This,  however,  is  all 
that  can  be  claimed.  This  is  as  much  as  the  doctrine  of  presumption 
warrants.  It  must  likewise  be  granted  that  no  regulations  sufficiently 
comprehensive  to  include  the  advanced  requirements  of  an  alert 
nation  can  be  devised  for  all  time.  We  can  not  photograph  the 
future,  or  even  comprehend  it.  However  wise  we  may  be,  or  how 
ever  closely;  we  may  have  studied  that  which  has  gone,  we  are 
not  permitted  to  penetrate  the  mystery  of  that  which  is  to  come.  The 
unexpected  developments  of  an  active  world  we  can  but  partially 
forestall.  The  phonograph  does  not  store  the  pronunciation  of  the 
sages,  the  heroes,  the  philosophers  of  antiquity.  Ages  unborn  will 
hear  the  voices  of  Gladstone  and  Bismarck,  but  the  tones  of  their 
predecessors  in  greatness  must  be  ever  absent. 

To  suppose  that  rules  adopted  in  the  days  of  the  nation's  infancy 
by  her  Senate  will  be  sufficient  for  all  exigencies  in  maturer  hours 
is  to  expect  that  there  is  never  to  be  any  actual  development;  that 
our  country  must  be  monotonous  and  non-progressive.  It  needs  no 
discussion  to  show  that  we  are  a  go-ahead  people ;  that  we  are  fully 
alive  to  inspiring  demands. 

According  to  the  census  of  1800  the  United  States  then  con 
tained  5,308,483  persons,  and  of  these  nearly  one-fifth  were  slaves. 
It  now  contains  a  population  but  little  less  than  70,000,000.  At  that 
time  Cincinnati  contained,  perhaps,  15,000  people.  Buffalo  was  not 
laid  out.  There  were  a  few  cabins  upon  the  site  of  Cleveland. 
Pittsburg  amounted  to  little.  Rochester  did  not  exist.  Boston  con 
tained  a  population  of  about  25,000;  New  York  about  60,000,  and 
Philadelphia,  which  then  headed  the  list,  some  75,000.  Chicago  was 
unknown.  The  great  West  was  undeveloped.  The  vast  resources 
of  the  Pacific  Coast  had  been  untouched. 

The  western  frontier  was  located  within  the  Empire  State.  The 
entire  banking  means  of  the  United  States  in  1800  would  not,  as  a 
contemporaneous  historian  has  remarked,  "  have  answered  the  stock 
jobbing  purposes  of  one  great  operator  of  Wall  street  in  1875." 


308  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

The  same  author  tells  us  that  in  1800  "  the  normal  capital  of  all  the 
banks,  including  the  Bank  of  the  United  States,  fell  short  of  twenty- 
nine  millions.  The  limit  of  credit  was  quickly  reached,  for  only  the 
richest  could  borrow  more  than  fifteen  or  twenty  thousand  dollars  at 
a  time,  and  the  United  States  Government  itself  was  greatly  embar 
rassed  whenever  obliged  to  raise  money.  In  1798  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  could  obtain  $5,000,000  only  by  paying  8  per  cent, 
interest  for  a  term  of  years,  and  in  1814  the  Government  was  forced 
to  stop  payments  for  the  want  of  twenty  millions." 

It  is  perhaps  accurate  to  say  that  the  gross  exports  and  imports 
of  the  United  States  at  the  dawn  of  this  century  did  not  more  than 
balance  at  about  $75,000,000.  The  States  were  few  in  number. 
This  body  was  exceedingly  small.  When  the  Senate  contained  three 
or  four  dozen  members,  there  was  but  little  necessity  for  the  enact 
ment  of  stringent  rules.  There  was  no  opportunity  to  filibuster. 
No  chance  was  afforded  to  obstructionists  for  the  retardation  of, 
public  affairs. 

Although  it  is  true  that  civilization,  with  its  varied  social 
requirements,  molded  somewhat  by  climatic  conditions,  and  influ 
enced,  too,  by  many  other  causes,  has  developed  characteristics  in  one 
locality  and  among  a  certain  set  of  men  at  a  particular  date,  never 
theless,  human  nature  is  very  much  the  same  the  world  over  and 
through  the  generations.  The  people  of  the  United  States  had  been 
governed  under  the  English  system.  They  had  imbibed  much  of  the 
hard  sense  and  practical  ideas  which  begot  the  common  law.  More 
over,  the  severe  experiences  of  border  life,  the  trials  of  war,  and  the 
demands  of  a  new  and  unprecedented  situation  evoked  love  of  coun 
try  and  smothered  tendencies  to  indiscretion.  Thus  it  came  about 
that  a  country  not  then  remarkably  important  commercially,  offering 
but  limited  opportunity  for  the  accumulation  of  lucre,  sustained  the 
most  generally  patriotic  people  who  ever  lived.  This  spirit  has  not 
become  inactive,  but  many  contentions  which  were  entirely  foreign 
to  those  who  sat  in  this  Chamber  when  the  rules  which  I  am  attempt 
ing  to  consider  were  adopted  are  now  urged  upon  us.  It  passes  with 
out  saying  that  the  development  of  the  United  States  has  induced 
many  innovations  and  made  imperative  the  enactment  of  numerous 
laws.  The  wisdom  of  our  earlier  Congresses,  however  marked,  was 
not  equal  to  the  task  of  modeling  statutes  wide  enough  to  cover  the 
demands  of  1895-96.  Laws  have  multiplied  until  they  have  become 
so  numerous  that  no  one  pretends  to  have  more  than  a  passing 
knowledge  of  the  public  and  private  bills  which  have  become 
absolute  rules  of  conduct.  Our  Constitution,  the  best  result  of  the 
greatest  wisdom  of  our  predecessors,  did  not  satisfy  all  necessities. 
Men  who  now  sit  here  took  part  in  changing  that  instrument  and 
vitally  adding  to  its  prohibitions.  These  circumstances  amply 
answer  the  claim  that  no  revision  should  be  made  in  the  mere  rules 
of  a  body  which  is  itself  constantly  revising  the  statute  law  and 
sometimes  aiding  in  the  alteration  of  the  organic  instrument. 

I  assume  that  the  causes  which  have  made  it  necessary  to  add 
to  or  take  from  our  Constitution,  our  statutes,  our  Federal  and  State 
systems  must  have  made  amendments  to  the  Senate's  procedure 
advisable.  Apart  from  the  concrete  consideration  of  this  topic,  an 
intelligent  stranger  to  the  present  discussion  would  doubtless  say 
that  if  our  rules  are  perfect,  fit  for  unvaried  endurance,  the  Senate 
must  have  been  divinely  organized  and  at  all  times  acting  in 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  309 

accordance  with  a  plan  born  in  omnipotent  wisdom,  or  else  that  such 
rules  must  be  behind  the  age,  partaking  somewhat  of  those  proofs 
of  the  existence  of  ancient  marvels  which  are  furnished  by  prehis 
toric  formations,  petrified  forests,  the  remains  of  various  monsters, 
etc.  These  physical  reminiscences  are  important  because  they  are 
extremely  old  and  not  available  for  present  use.  They  form 
examples  of  that  which  has  been,  and  are  valuable  for  the  scientific 
lessons  which  are  taught  from  them.  Our  rules  are  too  modern  for 
display  and  too  ancient  to  suit  our  purposes. 

I  do  not  wish  it  to  be  understood  that  our  rules  ever  will  become 
or  have  become  so  obsolete  as  to  suggest  their  exhibition  with 
Cleopatra's  Needle.  I  merely  advert  to  the  possibility  of  their 
improvement.  They  are  still  capable  of  being  read  by  the  public, 
but  can  not,  it  seems,  be  understood  in  all  regards,  even  here. 
During  my  limited  incumbency  I  have  noticed  grave  differences 
among  our  parliamentary  Nestors  as  to  their  proper  interpretation, 
and  when  such  controversies  have  been  submitted  to  the  Senate,  the 
solution  has  been  accomplished  along  party  lines,  presumably 
because  the  safest  course  to  pursue  was  that  dictated  by  faith  in 
tried  and  trusted  leaders.  But  mutations  which  ought  to  affect  about 
everything  depending  upon  human  intelligence  have  not  interfered 
with  these  creations  of  the  remote  past  to  which  the  future  is  to  be 
sentenced,  because,  Mr.  President,  I  contend  that  in  this  regard  we 
are  behind  the  times ;  that  it  is  our  duty  to  be  up  and  doing ;  that 
we  can  not  hold  the  world  back ;  that  however  great  we  may  assume 
and  presume  ourselves  to  be  we  are  atoms  to  be  crushed  if  we  seek 
to  stay  the  march  of  intelligence ;  that  we  must  either  keep  abreast 
of  the  chariot  or  be  dragged  at  its  wheels.  These  are  propositions 
not  susceptible  of  refutation.  I  would  not  change  a  rule  merely 
for  the  sake  of  change ;  I  would  not  alter  one  without  a  reason ;  but 
I  would  not  retain  a  rule  merely  because  I  or  my  predecessor  had 
made  it. 

We  can  not,  I  know,  vary  our  conduct  as  the  dictators  of  the 
fashionable  world  do  their  raiment,  but  when  the  test  of  thought 
confronts  us  ought  we  not  seriously  ask  whether  we,  even  we,  may 
not  be  in  error?  The  boys  in  the  gallery  many  times  suggest  to  the 
accomplished  theatrical  manager  some  defect  in  the  acting  or  staging 
of  his  piece  which  the  boxes  have  not  detected.  May  it  not  be  that 
those  who  have  sent  us  here  are  right  in  their  present  criticism? 
"  We  owe  it  to  ourselves,"  says  one.  "  not  to  yield  to  public  clamor. 
Let  us  take  our  time  about  it."  This  advice  seems  to  be  heeded. 
We  are  taking  our  time  about  it.  Senators  declare  that  we  can 
always  pass  a  bill  if  the  majority  wishes  it  to  be  passed.  This  may 
be  true,  but  such  passage  is  brought  about  only  when  the  opposition 
is  practically  taken  out  on  a  stretcher.  Such  proceeding  is  not  intel 
lectual.  While  not  novel  here,  it  excites  universal  surprise  every 
where  else. 

THE    MAJORITY   IS   AT  THE    MERCY  OF   THE    MINORITY. 

Under  our  programme  a  single  voice  neutralizes,  nay,  vanquishes 
eighty-seven.  Sir  Boyle  Roche  would  have  said  that  one  Senator  out 
numbers  eighty-seven.  True,  a  single  Senator  may  be  subdued,  but  no 
thanks  to  our  rules  for  this  boon.  Give  the  credit  to  that  nature  which 
can  not  be  conquered.  Thus  it  afforded  the  relief  which  our  rules  attempt 
to  negative.  We  can  not  overcome  a  single  and  determined  oppos- 


310  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

ing  Senator  until,  his  physical  powers  having  weakened,  we  march 
to  the  roll  call  over  his  prostrate  and  panting  form.  Such  procedure 
is  not  dignified  surely,  and  if  there  is  reason  behind  it  no  one  has 
disclosed  the  same.  If  a  sufficient  number  of  obstructionists  to  order 
a  roll  call  be  present  and  a  proper  supply  of  positive  Senators  be  here 
to  watch  and  pray  with  their  fellows  —  which  must  nearly  always 
be  the  case  in  the  great  controversies  now  pending  or  plainly  in  sight 
or  hereafter  to  occur  —  no  vote  can  be  reached  until  the  minority  so 
wills  it.  The  more  numerous  Senators,  the  more  need  for  firmness 
and  positive  regulation.  We  have  now  the  largest  Senate  that  ever 
convened  in  the  United  States,  and  the  end  is  not  yet.  Let  us  look 
at  this  matter  in  the  light  of  the  present  and  consider  the  experience 
of  the  past.  The  tariff  discussion  in  the  last  Congress  furnished 
competent  lessons.  We  sat  here  day  after  day  and  were  treated 
to  essays  of  enormous  length,  compilations,  treatises,  etc.  Many  of 
these  were  not  listened  to  throughout  by  a  single  Senator  beyond 
the  member  who  had  the  floor,  and  except  perhaps  the  Senator  from 
Kansas  [Mr.  PUFFER],  who  listens  patiently  to  everything.  I  am 
told  that  he  has  felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  harken  with  the  hope  of 
hearing  that  which  might  instruct,  and  I  am  also  informed  that  he 
feels  that  his  self-sacrifice  has  been  but  partially  rewarded,  and  that 
after  all  his  trouble  he  is  ready  to  confirm  the  generally  accepted 
theory  that  everything  said  is  not  relevant  or  manifestly  instructive. 

Mr.  President,  I  witnessed  during  the  last  tariff  discussion  a 
Senator  of  great  ability  and  long  experience  speaking  in  this  Cham 
ber  when  there  were  but  four  of  his  associates  present.  One  was  in 
the  chair,  and  one  was  attentive.  I  marveled  why  it  was  necessary 
to  talk  under  such  circumstances.  The  fourth  Senator  was  writing  a 
letter.  After  a  while  an  absentee  strolled  into  the  Chamber,  and, 
with  a  desire  to  emancipate  us,  moved  an  adjournment,  and  the 
Senate  adjourned,  leaving  the  Chamber  but  slightly  less  agitated 
than  it  had  been.  Was  this  deliberation?  Did  the  Senators  who 
left  the  Chamber  pending  the  argument,  speech,  or  recitation  leave  to 
deliberate  ?  Perhaps  so  —  perhaps  so.  After  certain  religious 
instructions  the  auditors  are  remanded  to  solitude  for  reflection. 
Maybe  those  who  leave  while  the  lone  member  deliberates  aloud  do 
so  to  deliberate  in  silence. 

In  a  note  to  the  second  edition  of  Brice's  American  Common 
wealth  (volume  i,  page  116),  it  is  said: 

One  is  told  in  Washington  that  it  is  at  present  thought  "bad  form"  for  a 
Senator  to  listen  to  a  set  speech ;  it  implies  that  he  is  a  freshman. 

I  had  not  heard  of  this,  but  our  custom  gives  color  to  the  theory 
that  such  is  our  faith. 

The  numerous  calls  of  the  Senate,  the  appearances  and  disap 
pearances,  the  exits  and  entrances  of  Senators,  summoned  from  the 
cloakroom  and  immediately  thereafter  returning  thereto,  indicate 
that  lack  of  interest  and  want  of  proper  regard  for  public  business 
which  are  the  legitimate  result  of  the  procedure  I  condemn.  It  must 
be  conceded  that  it  would  have  been  cruel  to  force  anyone  to  hearken 
to  the  many  repetitions  dealt  out  here  during  the  tariff  debate.  Those 
addresses  were  not  made  to  be  listened  to.  No  Senator  was  offended 
because  his  colleagues  absented  themselves.  Why  should  he)  feel 
offended?  He  exercised  a  similar  right  himself,  and  he  did  unto 
others  as  he  desired  others  to  do  unto  him.  I  know  that  many  able 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  311 

speeches  were  delivered  upon  the  tariff;  that  our  opponents,  espe 
cially  in  the  running  debate,  made  trenchant  criticisms,  and,  from  their 
standpoint,  appropriate  remarks;  but  I  do  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that 
folios  after  folios  of  the  CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD  are  filled  with  sta 
tistical  and  other  compilations,  originating  on  the  Republican  side 
which,  while  wholly  cumulative  compelled  modifications  in  our  bill, 
yielded  under  compulsion  as  the  only  means  of  shortening  that  which 
threatened  to  last  world  without  end.  Much  of  this  profuseness  will 
not  be  studied  or  read  until  the  hieroglyphics  of  ancient  Egypt  have 
all  been  deciphered;  until  the  partially  eradicated  stories  which  linger 
in  the  ruins  of  Asia  Minor  or  arrest  the  archaeologist's  attention  in 
the  land  of  the  Aztecs  have  been  fully  interpreted  and  understood. 

During  the  discussion  to  which  I  have  referred  a  diminutive 
minority  (diminutive  as  to  numbers)  upon  the  other  side  of  this 
Chamber  declared  themselves  ready  to  talk  until  March  4  to  beat  the 
bill.  And  if  there  had  been  a  slight  addition  to  their  strength  the 
threat  would  have  been  executed. 

Another  and  very  striking  illustration  of  the  consequences  of 
our  rules  was  furnished  on  February  9  and  II  by  a  distinguished 
Senator.  The  bill  making  appropriations  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
Post-Office  Department  of  the  Government  was  under  consideration. 
A  certain  amendment  thereto  was  proposed  by  the  committee,  and  a 
point  of  order  was  made  to  the  effect  that  the  amendment  was  such 
general  legislation  as  to  conflict  with  the  first  subdivision  of  Rule 
XVI.  The  Senator  referred  to  thereupon  took  the  floor  and  pro 
ceeded  to  discuss  the  Alabama  election  controversy,  devoting  hours 
to  its  consideration,  presenting  numerous  affidavits,  statements,  etc., 
bearing  upon  the  transactions  incident  to  recent  proceedings  at  the 
polls  in  that  State.  That  Senator,  whom  we  all  know  to  be  able  and 
intelligent,  did  not  pretend  that  he  was  addressing  himself  to  the 
subject  then  before  the  Senate.  On  the  contrary,  he  had  sought  to 
be  heard  upon  the  election  matter  during  the  earlier  part  of  the  day, 
and  being  cut  off  by  the  parliamentary  situation,  did  not  hesitate  to 
say  that  he  would  take  the  floor  and  make  his  speech  in  any  event. 
He  is  not  to  be  greatly  blamed  for  this.  He  was  merely  exercising 
a  privilege  allowed  him  by  the  absurd  procedure  which  the  Senate 
tolerates  in  defiance  alike  of  sentiment  and  sense. 

The  following  is  one  of  the  many  samples  of  the  working  of  the 
present  rule.  Omitting  names,  I  will  read  the  report  of  an  occur 
rence  of  the  last  session,  which  was  published  in  a  journal  of  this 
city.  The  report  was  substantially  correct : 

AIMS    A    BIG    GUN. 

Mr.  A  did  not  attempt  to  further  prolong  the  delay  in  passing  the  bill, 
although  for  a  few  moments  it  looked  as  if  the  Senate  was  on  the  verge  of  a 
speech  three  months  long.  Mr.  B's  amendment  providing  for  legal  proceed 
ings  to  test  the  constitutionality  and  validity  of  the  tax  before  the  taxpayer 
had  paid  it  had  been  ruled  out  of  order,  and  the  decision  of  the  Chair  had  been 
sustained  by  an  overwhelming  vote.  Thereupon  Mr.  A,  in  order  to  get  a 
vote  upon  the  question  directly,  offered  another  amendment  to  the  same 
effect ;  but  Mr.  D,  declining  to  let  the  proposition  be  voted  upon  on  its  merits, 
raised  the  point  of  order.  It  was  immediately  sustained  by  the  Chair,  Mr. 
E  being  the  presiding  officer.  Never  a  word  said  Mr.  A,  but,  reaching  beneath 
his  desk,  produced  a  pile  of  manuscript  that  was  a  foot  and  a  half  high  and 
must  have  contained  at  least  a  thousand  pages.  It  was  a  speech. 

Mr.  C  laughed  out  loud.     Mr.  A  smiled  quietly  and  Mr.  G  nearly  fell  out  of 
his  chair.     Mr.   A,   with   a   face   as   solemn   as   any  clergyman's,   unbuckled   the 


312  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

great  leather  strap  with  which  the  immense  mass  was  fastened,  took  up  the 
topmost  pages  and  began  to  look  through  them.  Half  a  dozen  Senators  at 
once  gathered  around  him. 

"Are  you    going   to    make    some    remarks?"   one   of   them   asked    him. 

"I  am  going  to  make  these  remarks,"  was  the  Senator's  reply,  pointing  to 
the  mountain  of  manuscript,  and  the  very  ludicrousness  of  the  situation 
brought  a  smile  to  his  face. 

Mr.  H  went  over  to  plead  with  him.  Mr.  I  also  approached  to  view  the 
threatened  danger,  and  then  Mr.  G  walked  across  the  Senate  to  interview 
Mr.  A.  The  result  of  the  conference  was  seen  a  moment  later,  when  Mr.  A 
again  introduced  his  amendment.  This  time  no  point  of  order  was  made 
against  it.  It  was  voted  upon,  and,  as  Mr.  A  had  doubtless  anticipated,  was 
defeated  by  a  vote  of  19  yeas  to  32  nays.  But  he  had  gained  his  point,  and 
sinking  back  in  his  chair  with  an  expression  of  beatific  satisfaction  he  watched 
his  clerk  once  more  buckle  up  the  thousand  pages  and  stow  them  away  under 
the  desk,  where  they  still  remain  to  be  again  forthcoming  when  Mr.  A  has 
anything  to  gain  by  their  appearance. 

I  know  that  some  will  probably  say  that  there  has  not  been  any 
filibustering  here.  I  am  not  particular  about  words  or  names.  I  am 
referring  to  transactions  as  they  occur.  During  the  last  session,  and 
after  the  tariff  bill  finally  passed,  it  was  pretty  well  known  that  there 
were  in  that  bill  defects  —  certain  errors  —  which  the  alleged  domi 
nant  party  wished  to  correct.  The  adoption  of  all  the  Senate  amend 
ments  by  the  House  rendered  the  usual  committee  revision  impossi 
ble.  It  was  suggested  here  that  one  or  two  of  the  inaccuracies  should 
be  cured;  but  no;  the  minority  informed  the  majority  that  this  could 
not  be  done,  and  the  few  had  power  to  control  the  many.  We  threw 
up  our  hands  and  submitted  without  more  than  a  murmur.  Hence 
but  little  effort  was  made  in  the  line  of  even  clerical  improvement. 
The  press  correctly  informed  us  that  the  leaders  of  the  other  side 
concluded  that  there  should  be  no  more  tariff  legislation.  The 
minority  thus  dictated  to  the  majority,  and  the  majority  acquiesced. 
Others  again  affirmed  that  there  must  be  no  financial  legislation.  It 
may  be  that  the  majority  here  believe,  as  I  do,  that  it  is  practically 
impossible  to  enact  a  complete  financial  scheme  at  this  session;  but  it 
is  wholly  immaterial  whether  the  majority  or  the  minority  favors 
legislation.  The  majority  can  do  nothing  unless  the  minority  con 
sents. 

True,  the  minority  can  not  enact  a  bill  disagreeable  to  the 
majority,  but  practically  the  Senate  is  governed  by  a  minority.  It 
is  common  experience  for  a  majority  leader  to  say  to  his  restive 
subordinates :  "  Wait  awhile ;  have  patience ;  I  have  been  in  consulta 
tion  with  Senator  Blank,  the  leader  of  the  minority,  and  he  agrees 
that  if  we  will  make  the  following  concessions  he  wrill  see  that  the 
majority  is  allowed  to  proceed."  The  followers  sometimes  are  irri 
tated,  use  non-parliamentary  language  in  the  cloakroom,  refuse  for 
a  day  or  two  to  bow  down,  but  they  always  come  to  time.  They 
have  to  come  to  time  under  the  rules  —  the  constitutional  rules  of 
the  Senate.  Even  our  leaders  do  not  relish  having  to  do  this.  No 
one  pretends  that  it  is  just  right.  The  most  plausible  excuse  that 
can  be  given  is  that  nothing  is  perfect,  even  in  the  Senate,  and  that 
these  difficulties  are  of  less  moment  than  those  that  might,  could,  or 
would  be  produced  by  more  positive  and  less  curious  regulations. 

I  will  show  that  there  is  nothing  in  these  excuses  or  arguments. 
Just  now  there  are  various  important  bills  before  us.  Perhaps  we 
may  be  allowed  to  vote  upon  them.  Many  of  them  present  no  party 
issue.  But  one  opposing  Senator  may  baffle  us.  If  we  assume  that 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  313 

there  is  a  majority  of  10  or  20  only,  either  for  or  against  one  of  these 
bills,  and  if  the  measure  reaches  a  roll  call  or  a  determination,  it  will 
be  because  the  minority  have  so  willed.  In  other  words,  the  passage 
of  a  bill  is  effected  when  the  opponents  thereof  agree  thereto.  This 
is  certainly  a  harmonious  anticipation  involving  peace  and  good  will. 
We  vote  because  of  the  magnanimity  of  those  whom  we  outnumber. 
I  know  that  some  who  differ  from  me  declare  that  bills  are 
always  passed  on.  This  is  not  true.  But  if  it  were  better  founded 
it  would  be  a  remarkably  weak  response.  Are  those  rules  the  per 
fection  of  human  wisdom  whose  only  value  is  that  notwithstanding 
their  existence  legislation  may  be  had?  Rules  framed  for  a  legisla 
tive  body  defended  because  in  spite  of  them  work  may  be  done! 
Rules  are  everywhere  supposed  to  be  designed  to  promote  work. 
If  the  argument  is  worth  anything,  it  is  for  the  reason  that  it  means 
that  the  essence  of  Senatorial  statesmanship  is  the  impeding  of  legis 
lation.  A  body  formed  to  legislate  is,  according  to  this  view,  per 
forming  its  obligations  when  it  does  its  best  to  negative  the  object 
of  its  creation.  Organized  for  action,  it  luxuriates  in  inaction  and 
deliberates  and  deliberates  and  deliberates,  while  one  part  of  the 
country  is  swearing  and  the  other  is  yawning. 

ILL-ADVISED  LEGISLATION  IS  NOT  AVOIDED  BY  A  SYSTEM  WHICH  CONSUMES  TIME 
AND  ENLIGHTENS  NO  ONE. — THE  DISCUSSION  WHICH  RESULTS  IN  BENEFIT 
IS  PERTINENT,  DIRECT,  AND  PITHY  DEBATE. 

The  person  who  tells  me  that  addresses  which  are  listened  to  only 
by  the  suffering  Presiding  Officer  and  by  the  party  who  is  talking 
enlighten  anybody  does  not  appeal  very  strongly  to  me.  When  a 
minority  resolves  upon  the  death  of  a  bill  the  speeches,  while  fatal  to 
the  measure,  are  also  dull  to  the  Senate  and  void  of  intelligent  con 
sequences.  If  mistakes  have  been  made  in  bills  which  have  passed 
here  after  lengthy  debate,  it  does  not  prove  that  we  did  not  spend 
enough  of  time  upon  such  measures,  but  does  establish  that  our  hours 
were  not  as  well  employed  as  would  have  been  the  case  had  there 
been  a  brisk  and  apposite  discussion  upon  which  was  centered  the 
undivided  attention  of  the  whole  body.  The  present  plan  inhibits 
such  educating  consideration.  Reasonable  rules  will  produce  the 
improved  condition.  I  frankly  admit  that  I  do  not  like  to  be  driven, 
and  I  also  know  that  self-respect  requires  us  to  maintain  our 
integrity  against  demagogic  onslaught.  If  you  do  not  respect  your 
self,  how  can  you  expect  others  to  respect  you,  is  a  pointed  inquiry 
upon  a  proper  occasion.  It  is  an  inquiry  which  I  would  address  to 
those  who  inflict  kill-bill  compilations  upon  their  brethren,  which 
compilations  are  never  read  again  nor  intended  to  be  read  by  men 
or  angels  —  certainly  not  by  angels  who  are  not  paying  the  fearful 
penalty  of  transgression.  It  is  because  I  revere  this  place,  long  and 
now  tenanted  by  many  great  and  good  men ;  it  is  because  I  trust 
that  our  posterity  may  see  in  this  Chamber  nothing  to  offend  and  but 
little  to  improve,  and  it  is  because  I  feel  that  unless  we  remodel  our 
practice  we  will  be  righteously  condemned  that  I  make  this  appeal, 
especially  to  those  Senators  whose  extended  and  valuable  services 
to  their  country  leads  me  to  hope  that  they  will  finally  decide  aright. 

THE   DIGNITY   OE  THE   SENATE   IS   NOT   MAINTAINED  BY   ADHERING   TO   PARLIAMENTARY 

ANOMALIES. 

Much  has  been  said  with  reference  to  the  dignity  of  the  Senate, 
and  it  appears  to  be  intimated  that  it  would  not  be  dignified  to  have 

21 


314  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

a  previous  question  here;  that  other  bodies  may  condescend  to  such 
restrictions,  but  that  it  would  be  indecorous  for  us  to  do  so.  But 
the  Senate  was  created  for  the  purpose  of,  to  some  extent,  legislating 
for  the  country.  Such,  certainly,  is  one  of  its  most  important  duties. 
Jt  was  designed  to  act  with  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  both 
together  to  form  the  National  Legislature.  It  was  not  organized 
merely  that  its  members  might  be  impressive.  But  dignity  (dignus) 
is  the  equivalent  of  true  worth,  of  excellence.  It  does  not  depend 
solely  or  chiefly  upon  external  manifestations  nor  lofty  bearing. 
Senatorial  dignity  should  result  from  the  full  discharge  of  the  obliga 
tions  of  a  Senator.  It  is  not  begotten  of  rules;  it  exists  only  in 
just  appreciation  of  high  responsibility,  and  is  the  companion  of 
onerous,  patriotic  labor,  carefully,  ably,  and  conscientiously  done. 
Due  comprehension  of  the  importance  of  his  trust  should  influence 
the  manner  and  conduct  of  a  Senator.  He  should  ever  remember  that 
his  fealty  to  the  great  power  which  he  represents  inhibits  improper 
and  unseemly  action.  But  the  people  of  the  United  States  did  not 
make  this  body  for  any  other  purpose  than  to  conserve,  develop,  and 
perpetuate  the  principles  of  liberty,  which  they  hoped  would  enable 
them  to  pursue,  without  fear  or  favor,  their  legitimate  affairs.  The 
Government,  after  all,  is  an  agency  of  a  strictly  business  character. 
The  unessential  embellishments  of  power,  the  pomp  and  circum 
stance  of  authority,  are  daily  becoming  less  and  less  tolerable.  The 
diffusion  of  education,  the  fact  that  the  printing  press  is  so  generally 
in  use  and  literature  so  available  tends  toward  the  equalization  of 
mentality  as  far  as  such  equalization  is  natural  and  renders  too  much 
display  and  obtrusive  consciousness  of  the  possession  of  authority 
repulsive  to  the  average  American.  Recognition  of  the  courtesies 
of  enlightened  life  must  undoubtedly  prevail ;  the  enforcement  of 
regulations  dictated  by  regard  for  order  and  adequate  veneration  of 
our  country's  institutions  is  also  vital,  but  here  the  patience  of  our 
constituents  is  disposed  to  cease. 

THE  SENATE    SHOULD    NOT   BE   AN    EXCEPTION   TO   ALT,    LEGISLATIVE    BODIES. 

Every  effective  assemblage  in  the  civilized  world  is  controlled 
by  rules  which  make  the  transaction  of  business  by  the  majority 
always  attainable  within  a  reasonable  period.  This  is  true  of  short 
lived  bodies,  such  as  conventions,  of  more  permanent  organizations, 
such  as  parliaments,  diets,  chambers  of  deputies,  etc.  Even  the 
Senate  claims  to  have  rules,  and  I  think  I  have  heard  it  admitted  that 
these  are  valuable  as  aids  to  affirmative  action.  How  absurd  to  fix 
hours  for  morning  business  or  to  designate  a  time  when  the  Calendar 
may  be  considered  or  anything  else  taken  up,  when  we  contuma 
ciously  and  with  premeditation  so  manage  our  affairs  that  one- fourth 
of  the  body  can  readily  defeat  a  roll  call  on  the  merits.  That  a 
quorum  may  be  present  and  actually  debating,  and  yet  by  declining  to 
vote  members  present  may  make  the  record  show  no  quorum,  is  a 
condition  perfectly  familiar  and  indefensible.  If  we  are  to  have  rules 
at  all,  let  them  reach  the  vital  part.  If  we  are  here  for  work,  let  the 
work  be  done.  If  it  be  better  for  the  country  that  no  legislation 
should  be  had  —  and  I  have  heard  a  distinguished  man  defend  our 
rules  on  this  ground  —  then  let  us  meet  only  to  adjourn.  If  a  bill  is 
good,  ought  it  not  to  pass?  If  it  is  bad,  should  it  not  be  disposed 
of  according  to  law?  Talking  a  bill  to  death,  while  in  harmony  with 
Senatorial  usage,  is  unreasonable.  Rational  consideration,  full  con- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  315 

sideration,  every  measure  indeed  should  have,  even  at  the  risk  of 
weariness,  but  a  minority  should  not  be  allowed  to  effectively  say, 
"  We  will  not  permit  clerical  errors  or  other  obvious  defects  in  a 
tariff  or  other  bill  to  be  changed.  Our  policy  is  to  compel  the  coun 
try  to  act  under  the  measure  as  it  is.  We  claimed  that  the  bill  was 
defective,  nevertheless  it  was  made  a  law.  WTe  will  now  decline  to 
permit  mistakes  to  be  rectified,  even  though  the  same  may  have  been 
exposed  by  us.  It  is  against  our  policy  to  permit  the  majority  to 
act/' 

Is  it  wonderful  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  censure  the 
Senate?  Is  it  remarkable  that  this  is  not  a  popular  body?  Is  it 
singular  that  every  one  asks  us  why  the  Senate  is  so  slow?  And 
is  it  not  peculiar  that  our  excuse  must  be  that  our  rules  will  not 
permit  us  to  do  anything  —  that  we  are  disciplined  to  inaction?  Is 
it  true  of  other  advanced  peoples  that  their  highest  legislative  cham 
bers  are  compelled  to  admit  that  their  rules,  their  own  instruments, 
created  to  facilitate  business,  are  efficacious  only  to  prevent  the  deter 
mination  of  important  issues?  It  was  never  designed  by  the  framers 
of  the  Constitution  that  this  body  should  be  an  insuperable  obstacle 
to  reform,  or  that  it  should  place  about  its  limbs  shackles  of  its  own 
fashioning  and  justify  its  torpor  by  referring  to  impediments  of  its 
own  proper  design. 

THE  FORCE;  BILL. 

I  am  aware  that  several  Senators  whose  abilities  and  statesman 
ship  long  ago  justly  won  for  them  high  national  reputation  object 
to  anything  approaching  a  cloture,  because  they  say  we  ever  stand 
under  the  menace  of  the  force  bill,  that  the  effort  to  enact  that  bill  is 
a  warning  of  the  presence  of  kindred  perils.  Stated  in  a  different 
form,  this  means  that  there  is  always  danger  that  the  majority  may 
become  tyrannical  or  may  scheme  for  continuous  dominancy,  or  may 
plot  against  the  country's  interests.  The  force  bill  seems  to  be  used 
by  each  and  all  of  those  upon  the  Democratic  side  who  rest 
upon  this  so-called  argument.  The  pertinency  of  the  illustration  is 
hardly  admitted  by  our  Republican  friends  who  defend  the  rules.  I 
shall  consider  the  subject  first  as  it  regards  the  obnoxious  bill  so  for 
tunately  buried.  Then  I  shall  attempt  to  maintain  that  the  good  or 
evil  of  any  special  measure  can  never  warrant  a  general  and  century- 
extending  policy  which  can  not  be  justified  except  as  a  preventive  to 
such  ill-advised  legislation. 

Is  it  true  that  the  country  or  the  Democratic  party  would  have 
been  ruined  had  the  force  bill  become  a  law?  I  do  not  think  so.  I 
have  the  highest  respect  for  Senators  who  regarded  that  concoction 
as  an  edict  of  proscription  and  death.  I  fully  agree  that  it  contem 
plated  an  unrepublican  system.  I  concur  that  the  time  of  its  intro 
duction  —  a  generation  after  the  close  of  our  lamentable  civil  strife 
—  was  most  unhappily  selected.  Nevertheless,  had  that  bill  been 
enacted  there  would  have  been  no  temporary  or  other  Democratic 
falling  off,  either  North  or  South.  The  common  danger  would  have 
solidified  expression  in  the  ballot  box,  and  an  attempt  to  repeat  the 
criminality  of  carpetbagism  or  the  errors  of  electoral  commissions 
would  have  stirred  the  Union  to  such  an  extent  that  election  cyclones 
would  not  have  been  causes  of  discomfort  to  this  side  of  the  Chamber. 
If  I  am  not  right  about  this,  and  if  still  I  be  correct  in  my  disapproval 
of  the  force  bill,  it  follows  that  our  Government  is  a  total  failure. 


316  SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

For  if  an  odious,  unpatriotic,  enslaving,  power-perpetuating  enact 
ment,  unjust  in  its  conception  and  cruel  in  its  workings,  be  not 
doomed  to  swift  destruction  by  the  honesty  of  the  land,  it  can  only 
be  because  it  reflects  public  immorality  and  general  wanton  disregard 
of  sacred  privileges.  Nor  is  it  any  response  that  the  nature  of  that 
bill  was  such  as  to  place  the  machinery  for  counting  in  and  counting 
out  in  the  hands  of  politicians,  who  would  have  exercised  such 
authority  selfishly  and  to  the  fullest  extent. 

This  condition  would  no  doubt  require  more  decided  public 
expression,  greater  majorities  than  are  ordinarily  determinative  of 
party  struggles,  but  the  difficulty  is  purely  theoretic.  The  American 
people  occasionally  "  go  out  gunning "  with  weapons  thoroughly 
charged.  During  these  uprisings  schemers,  gerrymanders,  force-bill 
men,  id  genus  otnne  have  only  one  recourse,  viz,  to  take  to  the  woods. 
Sometimes  even  the  innocent  go  down  with  the  guilty.  If,  which  1 
do  not  deem  likely,  the  Republican  party  shall  come  into  complete 
power  once  more,  having  under  its  control  the  executive  and  legisla 
tive  departments,  its  astute  leaders  will  not  attempt  to  enact  a  force 
bill  any  more  than  they  will  seek  to  re-enact  the  McKinley  bill.  They 
have  tasted  both  to  their  heart's  discontent,  and  will  be  found  some 
what  homeopathic  even  as  to  protection.  While  the  people  will  often 
go  too  far  —  while,  as  in  the  late  elections,  they  may  perhaps  visit  the 
sins  of  one  party  upon  the  other  —  yet  in  the  end  the  matter  will  be 
honestly  adjusted  —  the  fair  thing  will  be  done.  To  hold  differently 
is  to  write  one's  self  a  pessimist,  an  unbeliever  in  republicanism,  or, 
at  best,  a  political  agnostic. 

I  can  well  appreciate  that  Senators  who  lived  under  the  imposi 
tions  of  carpetbag  control,  who  watched  the  looting  of  their  treas 
uries  and  of  their  people  by  imported  conscienceless  and  merciless 
speculators  upon  patriotism,  who  saw  not  only  their  personal  belong 
ings  taken  away,  their  families  humiliated  and  terrorized,  their  rights 
as  citizens  ignored  and  repudiated,  but  who  also  suffered  from  enormous 
State  and  municipal  debts  and  the  infliction  of  numerous  other  evils, 
should  shudder  at  the  remembrance  of  such  a  condition,  and  should 
protest  against  any  concession  rendering  the  recurrence  of  such  enor 
mities  possible.  But  this  very  experience,  the  presence  of  hearts  and 
frames  yet  bearing  the  scars  of  outrage  and  sorrow,  is  apt  to  exagger 
ate  the  peril.  We  are  not  upon  the  heels  of  an  awful  war;  our 
people  are  commercially  and  otherwise  one ;  and  no  such  sad  state  as 
that  to  which  I  have  alluded  can  be  born  of  force  bills  or  miscalled 
legal  writs.  The  American  people  are  too  well  educated  in  liberty 
and  law  to  allow  long  life  to  any  cruel  or  clearly  unjust  measure. 
So  much  for  this  feature  of  the  case. 

I  affirm  that  we  must  not  spend  our  time  in  rendering  legislation 
difficult  because  we  fear  that  the  majority  may  pass  an  iniquitous  bill. 
When  I  say  the  majority,  I  mean  as  far  as  this  body  is  concerned,  the 
Senate. 

There  are  instances  —  as  in  the  case  of  the  expulsion  of  a  mem 
ber  or  upon  impeachment  trials  or  the  ratification  of  a  treaty  —  where 
more  than  a  majority  is  required ;  but  I  allude  now  to  those  cases 
where  those  who  sum  up  more  than  half  a  quorum  are  given  by  the 
Constitution  the  right  to  express  the  will  of  the  Chamber.  The  Sen 
ate  mentioned  in  enacting  clauses  and  which  Senate  concurs  with  the 
House,  is  not  practically  and  necessarily  composed  of  more  than  a 
majority  of  a  quorum.  Of  course  nothing  less  than  a  quorum  con- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  317 

stitutes  the  Senate.  The  contesting  minority  either  does  not  partici 
pate  in  the  enacting  of  a  law,  or  if  it  participates,  it  is  by  way  of 
protestation.  It  does  not  enact.  It  seeks  to  prevent  enactment. 
That  this  minority  has  a  right  to  require  deliberation  1  grant.  That 
it  may  dictate  the  extent  of  the  deliberation  and  define  what  consti 
tutes  deliberation  I  positively  deny.  To  admit  such  a  proposition 
would  be  to  permit  the  minority  to  deliberate  to  the  death.  Con 
sideration  there  should  be:  patient,  painstaking,  earnest  reflection; 
but  as  either  the  minority  or  the  majority  must  determine  when 
deliberation  ceases  and  the  wasting  of  time  begins,  I  at  once  select 
the  majority  as  the  repository  of  the  power. 

Majorities  are  not  infallible.  The  majority  and  minority  both 
come  from  a  body  speaking  a  common  language,  living  under  a 
common  Constitution,  governed  by  a  common  Federal  system,  and 
having  a  common  aspiration.  They  are  all  samples  of  one  stock. 
Hence  it  is  obviously  demonstrable  that  the  majority  will  be  oftener 
correct  than  the  minority.  I  prefer  to  live  under  a  plan  which 
sometimes  leads  to  wrong  rather  than  under  one  which  generally 
leads  to  wrong.  Usually  the  majority  is  in  sympathy  with  the 
latest  expressed  will  of  the  people.  Hence  it  is  not  easy  to  avoid  the 
conclusion  that  the  majority  will  commonly  enact  the  popular  will, 
and  no  one  is  bold  enough  to  claim  that  we  should  not,  as  a  rule, 
defer  to  the  public  will  by  which  we  have  been  inducted  into  our 
places.  There  may  be  an  extreme  case,  but  I  am  not  discussing  such. 
My  argument  is  a  protest  against  the  adoption  of  a  policy  based  upon 
exceptions.  I  repudiate  the  view  which  forces  me  to  follow  a  line  of 
conduct  usually  which  is  only  tolerable  in  isolated  instances.  I  ask 
for  a  rule  that  now  and  then  may  work  an  inconvenience,  but  which, 
in  the  vast  mass  of  cases,  must  be  beneficial.  My  adversaries  invoke 
a  plan  which,  as  I  have  said,  ignores  the  rule  and  recognizes  the 
exception,  adopts  the  special  and  rejects  the  general.  I  am  afraid 
of  majorities,  says  one.  Very  true.  But  I  am  afraid  of  minorities. 
If  we  can  not  trust  the  majority,  a  fortiori  minorities  must  be 
avoided.  The  basis  of  our  Government  is  the  recognition  of  the 
majority.  Many  of  those  who  have  endeavored  to  enforce  minority 
control  are  in  jail.  Some  of  them  have  been  disposed  of  according 
to  law  and  with  the  judicial  prayer,  "  May  God  have  mercy  on  your 
soul."  Outside  of  the  faith  of  this  Chamber,  the  American  people 
do  not  believe  in  minority  control.  Mr.  Webster  well  said  "  Liberty 
exists  in  proportion  to  wholesome  restraint."  Without  some  cur 
tailment  of  the  obstructive  power  of  the  minority  liberty  is  in  peril. 
When  the  majority  representing  the  people  can  not  prevail  within  a 
reasonable  time  the  condition  is  menacing. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  hour  of  2  o'clock  having 
arrived,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Chair  to  lay  before  the  Senate  the  unfin 
ished  business,  which  will  be  stated. 

The  SECRETARY.  A  bill  (H.  R.  2904)  to  maintain  and  protect 
the  coin  redemption  fund,  and  to  authorize  the  issue  of  certificates  of 
indebtedness  to  meet  temporary  deficiencies  of  revenue. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Chair  recognizes  the  Sena 
tor  from  Arkansas  [Mr.  JONES]  as  being  entitled  to  the  floor  on  the 
unfinished  business. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  inquire  if  the  Senator  from  Arkansas  prefers 
to  proceed  immediately?  It  will  not  take  me  very  long  to  conclude. 


318  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  JONES  of  Arkansas.  How  long  will  it  take  the  Senator 
from  California  to  conclude? 

Mr.  WHITE.     About  fifteen  minutes. 

Mr.  JONES  of  Arkansas.  I  should  be  very  glad  indeed  to  pro 
ceed,  but  I  do  not  like  to  interfere  with  the  Senator's  speech.  I 
yield  to  him  if  he  desires. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  am  much  obliged  to  the  Senator  from  Arkan 
sas. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  By  unanimous  consent  the 
unfinished  business  will  be  temporarily  laid  aside  without  losing  its 
place.  The  Senator  from  California  will  proceed. 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  Committee  on  Rules  is  and  has  been  com 
posed  of  some  of  the  ablest  Senators;  men  of  great  experience,  who 
have  given  much  consideration  to  parliamentary  problems  as  well  as 
to  general  legislation ;  yet  that  committee,  as  heretofore  organized, 
and  I  do  not  confine  myself  to  any  one  committee  or  to  any  particular 
membership,  suggests  an  admirable  illustration  of  the  evil  against 
which  many  are  now  protesting.  That  committee  creates  not,  neither 
does  it  destroy.  It  lulls  into  somnolence  all  tendered  changes.  The 
most  energetic  rule,  the  most  stirring  proposition,  is  afflicted  with 
incurable  lassitude  when  it  comes  within  the  anaesthetic  atmosphere 
of  this  remarkable  organization.  Occasionally  a  member  of  the 
Committee  on  Rules  notes  the  propriety  of  reporting  back  a  proposed 
resolution.  The  vitalized  committee  member  is  informed  that  he  can 
not  even  enjoy  the  privilege  of  filing  a  minority  report,  because  a 
minority  report  presupposes  the  existence  of  a  declaration  from  the 
majority,  and  the  majority  reports  not,  neither  does  it  cease  to  be. 
So  the  progressive  member  may  fuss,  he  may  protest,  he  may  storm, 
but  the  Committee  on  Rules,  smiling  upon  him,  benignly  prescribes 
calmness.  There  are  many  centuries  to  come.  Why  should  the 
minority  of  the  Committee  on  Rules  become  agitated  while  the 
majority  are  so  completely  satisfied?  You  believe  in  majorities,  they 
sarcastically  say ;  hence  demur  not.  This  condition  is  the  more 
remarkable  when  we  reflect  that  the  Senators  who  are  and  have  been 
on  that  committee  are  and  have  been  men  of  integrity,  determination, 
ready  judgment,  and  admitted  fearlessness.  But  I  am  not  addressing 
myself  to  any  particular  committee  or  to  any  special  person.  I 
spend  not  a  moment  from  a  mere  disposition  to  censure  an  individual. 
To  do  so  would  be  unjust.  My  aim  is  directed  against  a  system 
which  drags  down  not  only  the  Committee  on  Rules  but  the  Senate. 
The  Senate  is  responsible  for  the  committee  and  its  customs  and 
uages.  It  has  been  unjustly  said  that  the  Committee  on  Rules  is  the 
graveyard  of  Senatorial  advancement.  There  is  nothing  left  of  a 
rule  when  it  reaches  that  committee.  There  is  nothing  to  inter.  The 
suggestion  not  only  sleeps,  not  only  dies,  but  it  is  forgotten.  No 
coffin  conceals  its  wasting  form,  no  urn  contains  its  ashes,  no  parting 
words  are  uttered,  no  eulogy  pronounced.  The  Committee  on  Rules 
is  not  obtrusive.  Its  power  of  annihilation  is  effectively  manifested 
in  silence,  serenity,  and  solemnity.  The  numerous  amendments  which 
have  been  submitted  to  this  committee  at  different  times  have  not 
affected  any  controlling  opinion  within  its  circle.  That  body  has  had 
nothing  to  say  as  to  the  impropriety  of  the  many  propositions  which 
the  irate  and  nervous,  the  dignified  and  sedate  have  pressed  for  con 
sideration. 

The  committee  has  not  even  officiallv  informed  us  whether  its 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  319 

members  think  that  the  rules  can  be  improved.  We  have  not  been 
told  whether  it  is  desirable  to  enact  a  rule  to  establish  that  we  are 
present  when  we  are  not  absent,  or  whether  it  is  not  possibly  well 
that  we  should  repeal  a  canon  of  practice  which  records  us  absent 
when  we  are  demonstratively,  though  it  seems  unparliamentary, 
here.  We  have  not  been  informed  whether  it  is  right  to  place  upon 
the  Journal  the  presence  of  a  Senator  who  declares  in  stentorian 
tones  that  he  can  not  be  counted  because  he  is  paired ;  who  announces 
that  because  some  one  is  really  abroad  he  is  constructively  away.  If 
a  Senator  should  engage  another  Senator  in  desperate  physical 
encounter  —  a  supposition  purely  illustrative  —  and  should  in  the. 
midst  of  the  melee  declare  himself  paired  or  refuse  to  answer,  he 
would  not  be  counted,  would  be  considered  absent,  although  he 
might  be  expelled  because  of  misconduct  in  the  presence  of  the  Senate 
while  in  session.  Senators  who  do  not  know  this  body  have,  when  in 
workful  mood  and  as  the  result  of  rosy  anticipations  of  duty  per 
formed,  transmitted  to  the  Committee  on  Rules  declarations  of  prin 
ciples  of  action  which  have  been  recognized  as  effective  and  necessary 
throughout  civilization,  vainly  trusting  that  the  hour  for  improve 
ment  had  been  reached.  Visionary  indeed  are  such  aspirations ; 
unfruitful  such  efforts ;  abortive  such  exertions.  Time  disciplines 
these  enthusiastic  tyros  in  Senatorial  ways.  They  finally  lapse  into 
a  semi-acquiescent  state.  When  these  rules  are  changed  —  and  they 
will  be  changed  —  Senators,  now  young,  who  tendered  these  amend 
ments,  will  stay  their  tottering  steps  as  they  proceed  down  the  pleas 
ant  walks  of  their  later  lives,  and  will  say,  in  the  uncertainty  of  the 
utterances  of  old  age,  "  Yes,  yes ;  those  amendments  were  proposed 
long  ago,  forty  or  fifty  years  ago.  I  made  a  few  remarks  concerning 
them ;  am  glad  to  see  that  my  sentiments  have  at  last  obtained.  Sin 
gular  that  it  should  have  taken  half  a  century  to  induce  the  Senate 
to  agree  with  unanimous  expression.  It  has  been  a  little  slow  —  yes, 
quite  slow ;  quite  slow." 

IT    IS    UNNECESSARY     TO     SEEK     PRECEDENTS     ABROAD     CONCERNING    THE     DISIRABILITY 
OF    A    MORE    PRACTICAL    SET    OF   RULES. 

We  have  a  home  example;  a  case  not  only  in  point,  but  a  teach 
ing,  inspiring,  chiding,  and  dominating  case  —  that  furnished  by  the 
House  of  Representatives.  At  the  outset  of  the  debate  which  there 
led  to  the  final  rules  of  the  Fifty-third  Congress,  precedents  were 
cited  to  show  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  more  restrictive  forms. 
Attention  was  called  there,  as  it  is  called  here,  to  the  truth  that  our 
country  has  managed  to  get  along  for  a  century  under  old  conditions. 
Undoubtedly  the  founders  of  this  Government  did  not  consider  the 
obstructionist  of  to-day.  It  is  unnecessary  to  ask  for  the  reason. 
It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  without  the  change  business  could  not  be 
transacted  at  all ;  and  hence  the  good  sense  of  our  Representatives 
brought  about  the  alteration.  Although  the  majority  of  the  party 
to  which  I  belong  denounced  Mr.  REED  for  his  work  with  reference 
to  parliamentary  matters,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  neither  party  will  ever 

I  back  to  the  rules  and  regulations  which  have  been  abandoned, 
ir  Republican  friends  deserve  the  credit  of  the  first  effective  action 
in  the  House,  though  in  inaugurating  the  work  they  but  followed  the 
precedent  made  by  the  Senator  from  New  York  while  he  was  the 
presiding  officer  of  the  senate  of  the  Empire  State.  But  that  party, 
after  loudly  proclaiming  in  justification  of  its  course  that  it  is  traitor 
ous  to  oppose  the  popularly  selected  majority,  had  no  sooner  been 


320  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

condemned  to  second  place  than  it  immediately  adopted  dilatory  tac 
tics,  and  with  pleasing  abandon  maintained  that  until  the  Democratic 
majority  forced  the  Republican  minority  to  do  its  duty,  the  latter  was 
authorized  to  pursue  its  natural  bent.  The  best  advertised  honesty 
in  the  Republican  Congressional  delegation  advocated  and  directed 
this  course.  The  Republican  press  applauded  it.  Republican  bosses 
said :  "  Go  on ;  your  course  is  bold,  but  your  immorality  will  demon 
strate  the  need  of  coercive  measures.  We  will  sustain  our  virtue  by 
insisting  upon  vice."  This  programme,  faithfully  carried  out, 
resulted  in  the  rules  which  finally  prevailed  at  the  other  end  of  the 
Capitol  during  the  last  part  of  the  Fifty-third  Congress,  and  which 
gave  the  majority  that  control  which  the  Constitution  contemplates 
and  the  public  rightfully  demands. 

It  must  be  understood  that  I  do  not  favor  the  House  rules.  The 
numerical  parliamentary  features  existing  there  are  not  so  marked 
here,  and  for  that  reason  greater  latitude  can  be  allowed.  My  insist 
ence  is  that  some  method  shall  be  devised  which  will  enable  the 
majority,  after  a  rational  period,  after  liberal  debate,  allowing  time 
which  can  not  without  unanimous  consent  be  reduced,  to  put  the 
previous  question,  and  also  to  compel  the  record  to  speak  the  truth 
as  to  the  presence  of  Senators.  I  know  that  no  one  will  insist  upon  a 
vote  even  under  these  conditions  at  such  an  hour  or  day  as  will  pre 
vent  a  Senator  from  fully  and  fairly  expressing  himself,  and  I  trust 
that  I  am  not  hoping  against  hope  when  I  assume  that  the  Senate 
will  sometime  exercise  the  power  to  determine  that  the  reading  of 
Paradise  Lost,  Webster's  Dictionary,  Mr.  Gladstone's  translation  of 
Horace,  etc.,  are  not  always  in  order,  regardless  of  the  subject  under 
discussion.  If  such  authority  exists  to-day,  either  in  the  Senate  or  its 
presiding  officer,  it  is  not  exercised,  and  yet  clearly  irrelevant  matter 
has  been  often  projected  upon  us.  The  Senator  who  fathers  an 
address  so  long  that  he  can  not  afford  to  listen  to  it  himself,  which, 
perhaps,  he  may  not  have  even  read  or  heard  read,  should  not  be  per 
mitted  to  procure  an  enthusiastic  colleague  to  publish  it  for  him 
while  he  retires  to  be  refreshed,  that  he  may  be  able  to  come  again 
upon  the  stage  and  challenge  the  physical  endurance  of  those  whose 
judgment  he  does  not  either  hope  or  seek  to  affect. 

Technical  debate  is  not  actual  debate  in  this  Chamber.  Some 
one  delivers  a  formal  address  to-day  and  it  is  answered  by  an  equally 
formal  preparation  two  months  hence.  The  enormous  accumulations 
contained  in  the  CONGRESSIONAL  RECORD  would,  I  believe,  be  greatly 
reduced,  to  the  benefit  of  all,  if  we  proceeded  upon  business  princi 
ples.  Senators  have  stated  here  frequently  that  the  number  of  bills 
passed  by  this  body  shows  that  the  rules  are  good  enough.  It  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  most  of  these  measures  have  excited  no  great 
interest  or  active  discussion.  In  such  cases  no  trouble  is  experienced 
in  obtaining  speedy  action ;  but  when  the  great  issues  —  the  material 
matters  pertaining  to  legislation  —  are  before  us,  the  obstructionist 
becomes  omnipotent,  and  days  and  days  and  weeks  are  wasted. 
Senators  may  say  that  such  discussion  is  not  wasted.  But  no  one 
listens  to  it.  Occasionally  some  episode  induces  the  public  to  fill  the 
galleries  and  Senators  to  seek  the  floor;  but  for  the  most  part  the 
deliberative  eloquence  mentioned  is  spoken  ineffectively,  except  in  so 
far  as  it  stops  needed  legislation. 

The  House  of  Representatives  more  than  once  has  passed  a  reso 
lution  favoring  the  submission-to  the  several  States  of  a  constitutional 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  321 

amendment  authorizing  the  election  of  Senators  by  direct  vote.  For 
months  at  a  time  that  resolution  has  been  here.  It  has  been  tied  up, 
buried,  ignored,  sat  upon  by  our  preponderating  ponderousness. 
Great  interest  is  taken  all  over  the  country  in  this  proposition.  Rep 
resentatives  direct  from  the  people  have  asked  that  the  States  be  per 
mitted  to  act  upon  the  matter ;  but  the  Senate  not  only  fails  to  permit 
such  action,  but  declines  to  expressly  say  whether  it  will  or  will  not 
submit  it.  '  For  myself,  I  am  emphatically  in  favor  of  the  adoption 
of  that  constitutional  amendment.  The  issue  was  submitted  to  the 
voters  of  California  in  1892,  and  the  vote  stood :  For  the  amendment, 
187,958;  against,  13,342.  It  must  be  understood  that  I  am  not  blam 
ing  anyone  in  particular.  The  pernicious  results  to  which  I  refer  are 
the  legitimate  offspring  of  a  system  that  is  operative  only  for  harm, 
and  that  should  have  been  remodeled  long,  long  ago. 

I  think  that  we  owe  something  to  the  public.  This  body,  while 
not  chosen  by  the  popular  vote,  is,  nevertheless,  elected  by  agencies 
of  popular  creation.  While  we  are  not  bound  by  an  initiative  or 
referendum,  still  we  should  pay  some  attention  to  the  desires  of  those 
who  sent  us  here.  As  our  Government  is  based  upon  the  popular 
idea,  we  must  not  deny  the  long-continued  demands  of  those  from 
whom  we  have  obtained  our  authority.  I  do  not  refer  to  the  expres 
sions  of  self-constituted  newspaper  critics,  whose  views  of  public 
conditions  are  sometimes  most  selfish  and  unreliable,  but  I  speak  of 
the  actual  beliefs  of  our  constituents.  I  have  been  in  many  States 
of  the  Union  —  in  large  cities  and  small  towns,  and  in  rural  districts 
—  during  the  last  two  years.  I  have  not  discovered  one  man,  woman, 
or  child  who  favors  our  prevailing  doctrine  of  legislative  paralysis, 
and  the  subject  has  been  and  is  one  of  constant  consideration.  In 
every  instance  the  Senate  has  been  censured  and  referred  to  as  antique 
and  as  constituting  more  a  relic  than  a  life  —  a  thing  that  has  been, 
rather  than  a  present  existence.  This  situation  is  not  pleasant ;  it  is 
unfortunate;  it  is  exaggerated  and  grossly  unjust;  but  the  provoking 
cause  is  plainly  discernible. 

The  ill  which  we  permit,  and  against  which  my  words  are  lev 
eled,  is  the  parent  of  many  of  the  unfounded  attacks  from  which  we 
suffer.  It  must  not  be  thought  that  I  believe  that  any  Senator  should 
sacrifice  his  views  of  the  Constitution,  his  convictions  of  duty,  to  a 
mere  external  demand,  whether  from  meetings  hastily  gathered 
together,  or  from  more  regularly  convened  bodies,  or  from  newspa 
pers,  or  from  the  press  generally.  These  expressions  should  be  duly 
weighed  and  should  not  be  thoughtlessly  ignored;  nevertheless,  I  will 
not  abandon  or  advise  another  to  abandon  conscience  or  independence. 
I  am  certain  that  the  States  here  represented  want  firm  as  well  as  true 
counselors,  men  of  integrity  who  will  not  be  swerved  by  threats  or 
flattery  or  by  "  the  conscious  simper  and  the  jealous  leer."  I  do  not 
forget,  either,  that  it  often  happens  that  those  who  criticise  possess 
"  a  brain  of  feathers  and  a  heart  of  lead."  Still,  while  thus  holding 
firmly  to  our  rights  and  guarding  according  to  our  judgment  public 
interests,  we  must  not,  as  I  have  stated,  fail  to  respect  or  consider 
opinions  of  those  whose  servants  we  are.  I  think  that  every  cautious 
person  will  appreciate  that  the  Constitution  contemplates  care  in  the 
passage  of  bills,  and  that  that  instrument  made  it  practically  impos 
sible  to  enact  a  law  without  considerable  deliberation.  The  passage 
through  the  House  of  Representatives  of  any  bill  is  attended  with 
much  discussion. 

The  Senate  was  organized  upon  the  long-term  idea  that  it  might 


322  SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

enjoy  greater  independence  and  be  subjected  less  to  exciting  influ 
ences  and  political  flurry.  It  was  thought  that  when  the  more  popu 
lar  branch  and  the  Senate  united  the  country  would  not  often  have 
inflicted  upon  it  an  unwise  law,  and  that  when  that  occurred  an 
Executive  veto  would  arrest  the  theatened  wrong,  and  that  more 
than  one-third  of  either  body  would,  when  occasion  warranted,  hasten 
to  the  support  of  the  President.  These  and  other  safeguards,  such 
as  that  requiring  a  roll  call  when  demanded  by  one-fifth  of  the  mem 
bers  present,  were  thought  ample,  and  are,  in  my  judgment,  entirely 
adequate.  There  may  be  possible  exceptions,  but  rules  well  con 
ceived  are  not  predicated  upon  exceptions.  No  one  concerned  in  the 
making  of  the  Constitution  apprehended  that  a  second  veto  power,  or, 
rather,  the  authority  to  extinguish  by  protracted  torture,  resided  in 
the  minority  of  the  Senate.  No  such  bill-destroyer  was  called  to  the 
attention  of  the  fathers.  They  no  more  anticipated  that  a  Senator 
would  filibuster  against  a  vote  than  we  look  for  a  filibuster  by  a 
minority  of  the  Supreme  Court  against  a  judgment  of  that  court  when 
attempted  to  be  announced  through  the  majority.  But  opinions  of 
official  responsibility  have  changed  since  then.  In  this  epoch  the 
Senatorial  parliamentarian  invokes  as  manv  quibbles  as  the  most 
erudite  professor  of  any  class. 

We  should  not  forget  the  usually  correct  proposition  expressed 
by  Gibbon : 

All   that   is   human   must   retrograde  if   it   do   not   advance. 

I  understand  the  solicitude  of  those  of  my  associates  who  fear 
that  a  change  of  rules  just  now  will  emphasize  Republican  influence 
in  this  body ;  but  my  remarks  have  been  of  no  avail  if  I  have  not 
shown  that  the  objections  to  the  procedure  of  the  Senate  which  I  have 
urged  are  not  conceived  in  partisanship,  but  arise  from  a  deliberately 
formed  judgment  that  the  public  welfare  is  involved  and  that  it  is 
imperative  that  attention  should  be  paid  to  the  well-grounded  and 
universal  demand  for  the  adoption  of  an  improved  plan.  The  party 
advocate  may  and  should  be  patriotic,  but  he  does  not  rise  above  the 
level  of  selfishness  if  he  insists  upon  saddling  a  parliamentary  incubus 
upon  an  already  heavily  burdened  body  solely  because  he  thinks  that 
the  majority,  whose  power  is  born  of  the  people,  may  under  prevailing 
•conditions  be  unable  to  exercise  the  authority  thus  solemnly  intrusted 
to  their  keeping  without  the  intervention  of  technical  obstruction. 

Our  rules  should  be  reasonable,  in  harmony  with  the  period  for 
M7hich  we  legislate  and  the  civilization  of  which  we  partake.  Let  us 
have  ample  argument,  but  not  argument  lasting  long  after  all  have 
ceased  to  listen.  Let  us  protect  the  minority,  but  permit  the  majority 
to  assert  their  manifest  privilege.  Let  no  Senator  openly  avow  his 
presence  and  place  the  same  upon  the  record  and  then  aver  that  he 
may  not  be  counted  as  part  of  a  quorum.  Give  to  all  wide  latitude 
in  debate,  but  do  not  refuse  to  call  a  Senator  to  order  who  willfully 
deserts  his  subject  and  consumes  the  time  allotted  thereto  in  the  con 
sideration  of  matter  wholly  foreign  and  palpably  irrelevant.  The  star 
of  progress  glows  with  increased  brightness.  He  who  stands  with 
sleepy  visage,  uncertain  of  his  duty,  is  mischosen  to  place.  Rever 
ence  of  the  great  and  gone  should  ever  be  cherished,  but  the  examples 
of  these  have  been  given  without  profit  if  we  do  not  move  with  rapid 
as  with  thoughtful  step  in  the  performance  of  the  duties  of  an  evolu 
tionary  age. 


DEEP  SEA  HARBOR*    SAN  PEDRO-SANTA  MONICA 


SPEECH 

IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
Friday,  May  8,  and  Saturday,  May  9,  1896,  and  Tuesday,  May  12,  1896. 

The  Senate,  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  having  under  consider 
ation    the    river    and    harbor    appropriation    bill — 

Mr.  WHITE  said: 

Mr.  PRESIDENT:  I  offer  the  amendment  which  I  send  to  the 
desk. 

The  SECRETARY.  It  is  proposed  to  strike  out  all  the  committee 
amendment,  commencing  on  line  13,  page  35,  down  to  and  including 
line  10,  on  page  36,  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  following : 

For  the  purpose  of  selecting  a  proper  location  for  a  deep-sea  harbor  either 
in  the  Bay  of  San  Pedro  or  at  Port  Los  Angeles,  in  the  Bay  of  Santa  Monica, 
on  the  coast  of  Los  Angeles  County,  Cal.,  a  board  of  engineers,  one  of  whom 
shall  be  an  officer  of  the  United  States  Navy,  with  a  rank  of  not  less  than 
commander,  to  be  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  one  a  member  of 
the  Corps  of  Engineers  of  the  United  States  Army,  to  be  selected  by  the  Sec 
retary  of  War,  and  one  a  member  of  the  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey,  to  be 
selected  by  the  Superintendent  of  the  Survey,  shall  personally  examine  the 
more  northerly  location  in  said  Santa  Monica  Bay  at  Port  Los  Angeles,  shown 
upon  the  first  chart  of  House  Executive  Document  No.  41,  Fifty-second  Con 
gress,  second  session,  as  a  proper  place  for  a  breakwater  and  deep-sea  har 
bor,  and  shall  also  examine  the  location  recommended  for  a  breakwater  and 
deep-sea  harbor  by  the  Board  of  Engineers  of  the  United  States  Army,  as 
appearing  in  said  House  Executive  Document  No.  41,  Fifty-second  Congress, 
second  session,  and  shall  determine  the  relative  merits  of  said  locations,  and 
shall  designate  which  of  said  locations  is  the  more  eligible  for  such  breakwater 
and  deep-sea  harbor,  and  shall  report  to  the  Secretary  of  War  their  finding  in 
the  premises,  and  the  decision  of  a  majority  of  said  Board  as  to  said  location 
shall  be  conclusive.  And  the  sum  of  $100,000  is  hereby  appropriated  for  a  deep- 
sea  harbor,  to  be  constructed  at  the  point  so  selected  by  said  Board ;  and  if 
said  Board  shall  select  the  said  location  at  Port  Los  Angeles,  then  the  break 
water  for  which  this  appropriation  is  made  shall  be  constructed  substantially 
as  shown  on  the  said  first  chart  in  House  Executive  Document  No.  41,  Fifty- 
second  Congress,  second  session;  and  if  said  Board  shall  select  the  location  at 
San  Pedro,  then  the  breakwater  for  which  this  appropriation  is  made  shall  be 
constructed  substantially  as  recommended  by  said  Board  of  Engineers  in  said 
House  Executive  Document  No.  41,  Fifty-second  Congress,  second  session; 
Provided,  That  the  Secretary  of  War  may  make  contracts  for  the  comple 
tion  of  said  work,  to  be  paid  for  as  appropiations  may  be  made,  from  time 
to  time,  according  to  law,  not  exceeding  in  the  aggregate  $2,998,000,  exclusive 
of  the  amount  herein  and  heretofore  appropriated :  Provided,  however,  That 
if  the  said  board  shall  report  in  favor  of  the  construction  of  a  breakwater  at 
Port  Los  Angeles  no  expenditure  of  any  part  of  the  money  hereby  appro 
priated  shall  be  made  until  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  or  the  owner  or 
owners  thereof,  shall  execute  an  agreement  and  file  the  same  with  the  Secre 
tary  of  War  that  any  railroad  company  may  equally  share  with  the  said 
owner  or  owners  in  the  use  of  the  pier  now  constructed  on  the  site  of  said 
harbor  and  the  approaches  thereto  situated  westerly  of  the  easterly  entrance 
to  the  Santa  Monica  tunnel  upon  paying  its  proportionate  part  of  the  cost 
of  that  portion  of  the  same  used  by  such  railroad  company  and  its  propor- 

323 


324  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

tionate  part  of  the  expense  of  maintainance  of  the  particular  part  of  said 
approaches  and  pier  so  used  to  be  determined  by  the  Secretary  of  War  in  case 
of  disagreement  between  the  parties. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER  (Mr.  FAULKNER  in  the  chair). 
The  question  is  on  agreeing  to  the  amendment  submitted  by  the 
Senator  from  California  [Mr.  WHITE]. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  President,  the  question  presented  by  the 
amendment  which  I  have  offered,  and  necessarily  involved  in  the 
report  of  the  committee,  is  of  great  local  importance  to  those  whom  I 
in  part  represent,  and  it  is  of  national  importance  on  more  than  one 
account.  In  the  first  place,  the  United  States  are  necessarily  inter 
ested  in  everything  pertaining  to  harbor  improvements.  This  fol 
lows  as  a  matter  of  course.  Then  the  Government  is  also  interested 
in  seeing  that  appropriations  made  by  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  by  means  of  a  river  and  harbor  bill  are  made  for  public  pur 
poses,  and  that  the  diversion  of  the  funds  of  the  Government  is  not 
accomplished  through  private  channels  or  for  personal  ends. 

The  situation  must  be  briefly  outlined.  It  will  save  some  time 
in  the  future  and  doubtless  be  of  advantage  to  me  as  well  as  to  those 
who  are  to  follow  me  in  the  discussion. 

I  place  before  the  Senate  a  map  which  can  not  at  once  be  seen, 
perhaps,  by  everyone  in  the  Chamber,  but  it  is  as  favorably  located 
as  circumstances  will  permit.  It  is  a  map  of  the  State  of  Califor 
nia,  and  I  particularly  direct  attention  to  the  southerly  coast.  It 
will  be  noticed  that  the  trend  of  the  coast  is  southeasterly,  so  that 
at  Santa  Monica,  located  on  the  map  at  the  point  indicated  by  me 
[indicating],  is  some  250  miles,  more  or  less,  eastward  of  the  par 
allel  upon  which  the  city  of  San  Francisco  is  built.  The  coast  from 
Point  Concepcion,  situated  nearly  north  of  the  Island  of  Santa  Rosa, 
tends  strongly  eastward ;  in  fact  the  shore  line  for  a  considerable 
distance  is  "almost  east  and  west.  Thence  it  proceeds  southerly  and 
easterly.  We  have  here  at  this  point  [indicating]  Point  Dume, 
where  Santa  Monica  Bay,  so  called,  which  is  really  an  open  road 
stead,  commences.  Following  along  the  coast  southerly  we  reach 
Point  Vincente,  where  the  Santa  Monica  Bay,  so  called,  ends. 
Thence  we  pass  along  the  coast  until  we  reach  a  point  called  Point 
Firmin.  [Indicating.]  There  the  Bay  of  San  Pedro  commences. 

It  is  from  a  point  close  to  Point  Firmin  that  the  breakwater 
recommended  by  the  Government  engineers  is  designed  to  be  con 
structed.  It  is  in  Santa  Monica  Bay,  at  a  point  some  15  miles  from 
Point  Dume  and  northerly  and  westerly  from  the  town  of  Santa 
Monica,  that  the  breakwater  provided  for  in  the  bill  is  sought  to  be 
erected.  To  more  definitely  fix  these  points  according  to  the  charts 
of  the  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey  which  are  before  us,  I  will  refer 
to  a  chart  obtained  from  that  office  in  this  city,  which  chart  is 
marked  "  Pacific  Coast  from  Santa  Monica  to  Point  Concepcion, 
including  Santa  Barbara  Channel,  California."  Point  Dume  upon 
this  chart  is  located  at  this  spot  [indicating].  It  will  be  observed 
by  a  close  inspection  of  this  diagram  that  the  water  from  Point 
Dume  southerly  and  southwesterly  is  exceedingly  deep,  the  figures 
reading  14,  150,  182,  233,  273,  322  fathoms,  and  so  on,  increasing. 
The  soundings  seem  to  cease  beyond  the  point  where  498  fathoms, 
or  2,988  feet,  appear. 

This  diagram  discloses  the  town  of  Santa  Monica.  The 
proposed  pier,  spoken  of  in  the  tracings  as  the  pier  of  the  Southern 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  325 

Pacific  Company,  extends  into  Santa  Monica  Bay,  at  a  point  more 
westerly  than  northerly  from  Santa  Monica,  a  distance  from  that 
town  of  something  like  2  miles,  or  a  little  less,  perhaps.  This  point 
[indicating  a  point  southerly  from  the  Southern  Pacific  wharf]  is 
located,  according  to  the  Coast  Survey  chart  before  us,  not  far  from 
the  8-fathom  line,  and  reading  the  figures  directly  in  front  of  and 
southerly  or  southwesterly  from  the  wharf,  we  have  the  following: 
8,  14,  26,  30,  60,  89,  180,  no,  40,  41,  61,  and  113.  Reading  not 
directly,  but  over  a  bearing  between  the  direct  reading  which  I  have 
made  and  Point  Dume,  we  find  that  the  water  is  somewhat  deeper, 
culminating  in  224,  238,  and  255  fathoms. 

I  refer  to  this  proposition  because  it  is  stated  in  the  argument 
before  the  Committee  on  Commerce  by  an  engineer  who  I  see  claims, 
in  a  document  which  he  has  issued  here  by  unnamed  authority,  to 
be  a  semi-official  individual,  that  the  water  near  Santa  Monica  is  not 
extremely  deep  and  that  one  of  its  great  advantages  is  that  there  is 
a  gradual  slope  and  an  easy  grade  and  that  the  waves  come  over 
such  grade  gently  and  without  disposition  to  do  serious  injury  when 
the  Southern  Pacific  pier  is  reached.  It  will  be  noted  that  in  the 
Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey  chart,  to  which  I  have  attracted  the 
attention  of  the  Senate,  there  are  no  soundings  in  the  portion  of  the 
diagram  immediately  south  and  southwesterly  of  the  last  sounding 
to  which  I  call  attention  [indicating].  I  presume  that  the  depth  is 
such  that  it  was  not  deemed  worth  while  to  proceed  further. 

Mr.  MITCHELL  of  Oregon.     When  was  that  diagram  made? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  received  it  very  recently  from  the  Coast  and 
Geodetic  Survey  office.  I  do  not  know  when  the  surveys  were  made. 
I  presume  it  is  the  latest  on  hand,  because  I  requested  the  best 
information  in  the  possession  of  the  office  and  I  was  furnished  with 
this  chart.  It  is  the  result  of  a  series  of  compilations  running  down 
to  1881. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  I  will  say  to  my  colleague  that  it  is  customary 
with  the  Coast  Survey  to  correct  these  charts  annually  and  that  this 
is  undoubtedly  the  last  issue  of  the  Coast  Survey. 

Mr.  WHITE.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  MITCHELL  of  Oregon.  The  Senator  says  it  comes  down 
to  1 88 1.  That  would  be  a  good  while  ago. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  That  is  the  original  plate,  but  where  the  sur 
veys  have  not  been  completed  these  corrections  are  made  from  time 
to  time.  That  they  are  correct  I  am  satisfied,  because  our  navigators 
upon  the  Pacific  Coast  are  using  this  series  of  charts.  They  are 
issued  by  and  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States  Coast 
Survey. 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  second  plate,  to  which  I  am  about  to  refer, 
is  called  "  Pacific  Coast  from  San  Diego  to  Santa  Monica,  including 
the  Gulf  of  Santa  Catalina."  The  island  which  is  observable  upon 
the  map  [indicating]  is  called  Santa  Catalina.  It  is  located  about 
18  miles  from  San  Pedro.  The  Senate  will  notice  that  the  words 
San  Pedro  and  Wilmington  occur  frequently  in  the  discussion  of  this 
matter  and  are  often  noted  in  official  publications.  As  far  as  this 
question  is  concerned  we  may  consider  San  Pedro  and  Wilmington 
one  place,  though,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  towns  are  some  little 
distance  apart.  However,  the  improvement  which  has  been  going 
on  for  many  years  in  this  neighborhood  is  known  as  the  improve 
ment  of  Wilmington  Harbor.  We  are  more  in  the  habit  of  desig- 


326  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

nating  the  inner  harbor  as  San  Pedro,  but  appropriations  refer  to 
the  place  as  Wilmington.  I  will  use  the  terms  indiscriminately. 
The  town  of  Wilmington  is  a  small  village  situated  upon  the  inner 
harbor,  and  San  Pedro  is  upon  the  same  waters. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.     How  far  apart? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Oh,  a  couple  of  miles  apart. 

The  Island  of  Catalina,  to  which  I  have  attracted  attention,  is 
some  20  miles  or  thereabouts  in  length  and  some  18  miles  from 
shore.  It  will  be  observed  that  this  large  body  of  land  furnishes 
protection  from  southerly  and  southeasterly  winds.  Its  northern 
shore  is  thoroughly  protected.  So  true  is  this  that  the  little  Bay  of 
Avalon  located  at  this  point  [indicating]  on  the  northerly  shore  of 
Catalina  Island  is  the  most  tranquil  sea  water  which  I  have  ever 
observed.  It  is  so  calm  that  there  is  no  difficulty  in  ordinary 
weather  in  using  any  common  rowboat  handled  by  a  lady  or  robust 
boy  along  a  considerable  portion  of  the  landward  coast  of  Catalina 
Island.  The  water  on  the  ocean  or  southerly  coast  is  comparatively 
rough.  I  mention  that  to  show  the  effect  of  the  island  in  stilling 
the  water  toward  the  mainland.  Its  length  extends  the  calming 
influence  and  affects  the  sea  to  San  Pedro. 

Point  Firmin  is  located  at  this  point.  [Indicating.]  It  is  from 
a  spot  just  easterly  of  Point  Firmin  that  the  Government  engineers 
have  designed  the  construction  of  the  breakwater  which  they  recom 
mend.  That  breakwater,  according  to  the  last  report,  is  to  com 
mence  near  Point  Firmin,  on  the  shore,  and  extend  outwardly  in  a 
curved  line,  thus  [indicating].  The  town  of  San  Pedro  is  located 
at  the  point  marked  San  Pedro  on  this  diagram,  indicated  by  the 
pointer  which  I  hold  in  my  hand  [indicating],  and  the  town  of 
Wilmington,  also  referred  to,  is  located  here.  [Indicating.] 

The  Senate  will  notice  in  the  report  and  in  the  bill  an  item  with 
reference  to  the  inner  harbor  at  Wilmington.  We  have  already 
made  an  appropriation  to  which  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  advert 
before  proceeding  further,  so  that  confusion  may  be  avoided.  We 
have  upon  page  36  of  the  bill  made  the  following  appropriation : 

Improving  Wilmington  Harbor,  California,  in  accordance  with  the  project 
submitted  February  7,  1895,  $50,000:  Provided,  That  contracts  may  be  entered 
into  by  the  Secretary  of  War  for  such  materials  and  work  as  may  be  neces 
sary  to  complete  said  project,  to  be  paid  for  as  appropriations  may  from  time 
to  time  be  made  by  law,  not  to  exceed  in  the  aggregate  $342,000,  exclusive  of 
the  amount  herein  appropriated. 

The  harbor  of  Wilmington  is  located  northeasterly  about  two 
miles  from  the  town  of  San  Pedro,  and  on  the  estuary.  The  inner 
harbor  designed  to  be  further  improved  by  the  $392,000  appro 
priation  is  separated  from  the  ocean  by  a  narrow  neck  of  land,  a 
sandy  island  known  as  Rattlesnake  Island.  [Indicating.]  That 
island  is  nominally  separated  from  the  mainland,  and  the  Terminal 
Railroad  now  runs  upon  the  island  and  along  Wilmington  Harbor, 
where  that  corporation  possesses  wharves;  and  there,  too,  private 
parties,  lumber  dealers,  and  so  forth,  have  built  wharves *  under 
franchises  granted  them  by  the  board  of  supervisors  of  the  county 
of  Los  Angeles.  Much  trade  has  thus  developed. 

The  inner  harbor  is,  at  its  commercial  point,  about  500  feet  in 
width.  Upon  one  side  of  it,  which  we  might  for  convenience  call  the 
shore  side,  there  are  located  wharves  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Rail 
road  Company,  and  there  that  company  is  constantly  running  its 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WRITE.  327 

trains  and  transacting  transportation  business.  On  the  other  side  of 
the  harbor  the  Terminal  Railroad  Company  conducts  its  business. 
There  are,  as  I  have  said,  many  business  men  other  than  the  rail 
road  companies  who  are  the  proprietors  of  wharves  or  docks  upon 
that  inner  harbor. 

The  Senate  will  notice  that  Point  Firmin  is  located  at  a  point 
where  the  bluff  rises  to  a  height  of  about  60  feet  [indicating],  and 
this  bluff  continues  down  to  the  town  of  San  Pedro.  Thence  the 
grade  reduces,  so  the  land  between  San  Pedro  and  Wilmington  is 
flat.  There  are  there  lagoons  and  sloughs,  as  we  call  them,  and 
marshy  land  over  which  at  times  the  tide  rises.  That  property  is  sus 
ceptible  of  commercial  development.  A  part  of  this  locality  has 
passed  into  the  possession  of  individuals.  The  major  portion  of  it 
belongs  to  the  State  of  California,  and  under  the  terms  of  our  present 
constitution  it  is  inalienable.  Under  our  laws  the  board  of  supervis 
ors  have  the  regulation  of  the  granting  of  franchises  for  wharves. 
These  wharves  are  public,  but  in  view  of  the  outlay  in  their  construc 
tion  the  proprietors  are  allowed  to  make  certain  charges  by  way  of 
toll. 

This  inner  harbor  has  been  a  marked  success.  When  the  Gov 
ernment  engineers  took  charge  of  this  work  some  years  ago  there 
were  only  2.  feet  of  water  upon  the  bar,  possibly  a  little  over  2. 
feet.  By  dint  of  skillful  management  and  in  consequence  of  the 
appropriations  made  by  Congress  the  depth  has  been  so  increased  that 
at  the  present  time  there  are  14  feet  of  water  at  low  tide.  The  tidal 
rise  in  that  neighborhood  is  about  5  feet.  Hence  there  are  upward 
of  1 8  feet  of  water  at  high  tide  at  that  place,  where  formerly  at  low 
tide  there  were  but  2  and  at  high  tide  perhaps  7  feet. 

Some  years  ago  this  estuary  or  inner  harbor  to  which  I  have 
referred  was  employed  solely  for  very  light  draft  craft.  I  recollect 
very  well  twenty-two  years  ago  when  I  first  went  to  the  city  of  Los 
Angeles  from  the  northern  part  of  the  State  in  a  steamer  owned  by  my 
colleague  and  his  associates.  We  anchored  outside  of  San  Pedro  in 
the  water  which  it  is  now  designed  to  utilize  for  an  outer  harbor,  and 
then  we  went  upon  smaller  craft.  Lighters  were  used  for  freight 
and  very  light  craft  for  transporting  passengers  into  this  estuary  to 
the  town  of  Wilmington.  Now  vessels  drawing  13  and  14  feet  and 
more  pass  into  the  inner  harbor  and  tie  up  at  the  wharves  and  dis 
charge  lumber  and  freight. 

The  main  occupation  there  at  this  time  is  the  lumbering  business. 
Most  of  the  lumber  coming  down  the  coast,  save  that  which  is  con 
signed  directly  to  the  railroad  company,  and  much  that  is  consigned 
to  that  company,  seeks  this  inner  harbor. 

The  provision  to  which  I  have  referred  and  which  we  have 
passed  upon  already  involves  carrying  out  what  is  known  as  the 
project  of  Colonel  Benyaurd,  by  which  he  proposes  to  obtain  a  depth 
of  18  feet  at  low  tide  within  the  inner  harbor ;  this  will  equal  23  feet 
at  high  tide,  which  will  accommodate  nearly  all  the  vessels  which  come 
there. 

Before  passing  from  this  point  I  wish  to  call  your  attention 
specifically  to  a  map  of  the  site  of  the  proposed  harbor  at  San  Pedro, 
which  contains  soundings  which  will  be  of  value  in  the  discussion. 
It  is  said  that  there  is  much  deep  water  at  the  point  where  it  is 
intended  to  construct  the  harbor.  It  will  be  noted  from  the  map  now 
before  the  Senate,  and  which  is  called  "  Wilmington  and  San  Pedro 


328  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

harbors,  California;  published  December  18,  1895;  W.  W.  Duffield, 
superintendent;  O.  H.  Tittman,  assistant  in  charge  of  office,"  and 
so  forth,  date  of  publication  1888,  that  is  not  true,  as  stated  in  Mr. 
Corthell's  paper  before  the  Senate,  and  as  heretofore  erroneously 
claimed  by  many,  that  there  is  such  abrupt  bottom  in  the  neighbor 
hood  of  Point  Firmin.  It  is  true  that  as  we  go  more  southerly, 
westerly,  and  northerly  there  is  a  gradual  and  a  rapid  recession,  as 
we  also  have  observed  in  the  case  of  Point  Dume ;  but  if  Senators 
interested  will  notice  the  depths  south  and  southeasterly  from  Point 
Firmin  the  depths  extend,  as  shown  upon  this  diagram,  these  figures 
in  fathoms  will  be  found  to  appear,  viz,  7,  9,  13,  17,  16,  17,  16,  14^, 
*3>  l$l/2,  and  to  19.  The  exact  distance  can  be  computed  from  the 
scale,  but  it  certainly  is  several  miles,  so  that  there  is  no  trouble  to 
be  apprehended  from  this  cause.  The  water  is  not  remarkably  deep. 
The  evidence  is  without  conflict  that  the  ocean  swells  proceed  from 
the  west,  and  that,  although  the  wind  may  blow  from  the  southeast 
and  points  not  varying  far  from  the  southeast,  still  the  swells,  the 
dangerous  seas,  come  uniformly,  or  nearly  so,  from  the  west,  and 
it  is  designed  to  construct  this  breakwater  at  San  Pedro  so  that  it 
will  cut  off  the  westerly  swells.  I  have  referred  to  this  diagram  to 
prove  that  the  assertion  regarding  the  soundings  which  has  been 
made  by  Mr.  Corthell  and  others  is  not  well  founded. 

You  will  observe,  therefore,  that  when  we  speak  of  the  inner 
harbor  at  San  Pedro  we  are  referring  to  something  which  has 
received  the  attention  of  the  Government  in  the  past,  and  for  which 
we  have  already  here  made  provision. 

The  outer  harbor,  with  reference  to  which  I  have  been  speaking, 
is  in  the  immediate  neighborhood,  though  not  directly  connected 
with  the  inner  harbor.  The  outer  harbor  would  be  peculiarly 
valuable  if  situated  adjacent  to  the  inner  harbor. 

The  questions  before  the  Senate  may  be  summarized  thus : 
First,  is  it  necessary  that  we  should  have  an  outer  harbor  at  all? 
Second,  if  so,  should  that  outer  harbor  be  located  at  San  Pedro  or 
should  it  be  fixed  at  Santa  Monica? 

Mr.  President,  if  it  be  conceded  that  the  selection  at  San  Pedro, 
as  contended  by  my  distinguished  nautical  friend  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  [Mr.  FRYE],  is  not  well  located,  and  that  the  Govern 
ment  is  not  warranted  in  making  the  expenditure  at  that  point,  the 
question  still  remains,  will  the  Government  be  justified  in  making 
the  expenditure  at  the  point  designated  in  the  bill? 

Mr.  GRAY.     Is  Santa  Monica  .on  that  map? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  have  here  a  map  upon  which  it  appears.  I 
place  before  the  Senate  a  diagram  which  was  utilized  in  Los  Angeles 
by  the  Architects  and  Engineers'  Association  and  which  Mr.  Corthell 
correctly  referred  to  in  the  hearing  as  an  accurate  picture  of  Santa 
Monica  Bay.  It  shows  the  wharf  and  the  bay.  I  shall  be  obliged 
if  Senators  will  examine  it.  I  likewise  present  a  photograph  of  the 
inner  harbor  of  San  Pedro  as  it  now  exists,  which  I  also  ask  Senators 
to  kindly  examine. 

Such  is  a  general  statement  of  the  location  proposed  for  this 
governmental  investment.  Let  us  now  inquire  as  to  the  official  status 
of  the  matter  before  the  Senate.  It  has  long  been  the  desire  of  the 
people  in  that  part  of  the  United  States  to  have  a  good  harbor. 
Senators  are  all  well  aware  that  most  of  the  Pacific  (so-called)  bar- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  329 

bors  are  not  of  the  best,  that  we  have  been  compelled  to  rely  largely 
upon  governmental  bounty  in  the  construction  of  harbors.  We  have 
a  splendid  harbor  at  San  Francisco,  a  splendid  natural  harbor  at 
San  Diego,  one  which  I  think  has  enlisted  the  admiration  of  every 
competent  judge  who  has  seen  it.  But  San  Diego  is  far  —  some  130 
miles  —  from  the  seat  of  that  extensive  population  of  which  Los 
Angeles  is  the  center.  It  is  not  practicable,  from  a  commercial  point 
of  view,  to  rely  wholly  upon  transportation  facilities  there.  In 
pioneer  days  San  Pedro,  or  Wilmington,  was  sought  by  those  nav 
igators  who  saw  fit  to  come  to  that  part  of  California  for  trading 
purposes.  The  locality  was  called  El  Embarcadero,  and  there, 
through  the  estuary  to  which  I  have  already  alluded,  the  modest 
commerce  of  that  time  was  transacted ;  but  as  population  grew,  Los 
Angeles,  having  according  to  the  census  of  1880  some  11,000  inhab 
itants,  and  at  present  having  perhaps  100,000  inhabitants,  with  a 
populous  country  immediately  adjacent  to  it,  the  necessity  for  another 
harbor  increased  and  the  requests  for  better  facilities  augmented. 

The  town  of  Santa  Monica  was  founded  years  ago  because  of 
the  enterprise  and  good  judgment  of  the  distinguished  Senator  from 
Nevada  [Mr.  JONES].  He  built  a  railroad  from  Los  Angeles  to 
Santa  Monica,  called  the  Los  Angeles  and  Independence  Railroad. 
His  design  at  that  time,  most  laudable  and  worthily  ambitious,  was 
to  extend  his  enterprise  from  Santa  Monica  to  Invo  County,  and 
possibly  to  Salt  Lake.  At  any  rate,  everyone  there  was  anxious 
that  Senator  JONES  should  succeed ;  but,  for  various  reasons,  unneces 
sary  to  enumerate  here  and  beyond  his  control,  the  road  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  and  he  failed  to 
realize  his  plan  and  to  bring  about  a  result  which  would  have 
advanced  the  wealth,  prosperity,  and  happiness  of  the  people. 

Senator  JONES  at  that  period  caused  a  wharf  to  be  constructed 
at  the  town  of  Santa  Monica.  That  location,  I  wish  to  impress  upon 
the  Senate,  is  not  that  where  it  is  now  designed  to  build  the  break 
water  mentioned  in  the  bill ;  that  is,  it  is  not  the  locality  whereat 
the  present  wharf  of  Mr.  Huntington  is  situated.  I  submit  at  this 
point  photographs  of  Mr.  Huntington's  pier,  which  I  hope  will  be 
examined.  Senator  JONES'S  wharf,  after  passing  into  the  hands  of 
the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  was  allowed  to  go  into  decay,  and 
finally  it  was  partially  eaten  by  teredos,  and  was  then  torn  down  and 
became  a  matter  of  memory. 

At  that  time  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  owned,  as  it  does 
now,  a  large  amount  of  property  at  San  Pedro  or  Wilmington. 
There  nearly  all  of  its  business  was  transacted.  Redondo,  a  ship 
ping  place  situated  between  Santa  Monica  and  San  Pedro,  com 
menced  to  assume  some  commercial  importance,  and  there  a  wharf 
was  constructed.  The  water  at  Redondo  is  very  deep,  too  deep,  as 
the  Government  engineers  found,  to  warrant  any  attempt  at  the 
erection  of  a  breakwater.  Redondo  transacted  much  commerce,  and 
finally  Mr.  Huntington,  or  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  more 
accurately  speaking,  made  an  arrangement  to  get  through  the  town 
of  Santa  Monica  along  the  seacoast  and  up  to  the  point  where  the 
wharf  we  are  asked  to  protect  now  stands. 

By  the  river  and  harbor  act  approved  September  19,  1890,  a 
board  of  engineer  officers  was  constituted  to  examine  the  Pacific 
Coast  between  Point  Dume  and  Capistrano,  with  a  view  to  deter- 

22 


330  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

mining  the  best  location  for  a  deep-water  harbor,  with  a  project  and 
estimates  for  the  work.  This  board  consisted  of  G.  H.  Mendell, 
colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers;  C.  L.  Gillespie,  lieutenant-colonel, 
Corps  of  Engineers ;  and  W.  H.  H.  Benyaurd,  lieutenant-colonel,  Corps 
of  Engineers.  This  board  preferred  San  Pedro.  In  submitting  the 
matter  to  Congress  General  Casey,  then  Chief  of  Engineers,  said: 

OFFICE  OF  THE  CHIEF  OF  ENGINEERS, 

UNITED  STATES   ARMY. 
Washington,  D.     C.,  December  18,   1891. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  submit  herewith  a  copy  of  report  dated  December 
8,  1891,  of  the  board  of  engineer  officers  constituted  under  the  terms  of  the 
river  and  harbor  act,  approved  September  19,  1890,  to  examine  the  Pacific 
coast  between  Points  Dume  and  Capistrano  with  a  view  to  determining  the 
best  location  for  a  deep-water  harbor,  together  with  project  and  estimates 
for  the  work. 

The  board,  after  full  examination,  concludes  that  the  selection  of  a  site  for 
a  deep-water  harbor  within  the  limits  designated  by  the  act  is  restricted  to 
the  harbors  in  Santa  Monica  Bay  and  San  Pedro  Bay,  and  is  of  the  opinion 
that  San  Pedro  is  the  better  of  these,  and  submits  alternative  estimates  of 
the  cost  of  necessary  breakwaters,  as  follows. 

If  constructed  of   rubble   and   concrete $4,594,494 

If  constructed  entirely    of    rubble 4,126,106 

After  a  careful  consideration  of  the  facts  in  the  case  as  presented  by  the 
board,  its  views  as  to  the  location  and  general  estimates  of  construction  are 
concurred  in  by  me.  The  difference  in  cost  of  the  two  breakwaters,  for  the 
same  arcs  of  protection,  is  over  $700,000  in  favor  of  San  Pedro,  and  when  the 
other  advantages  of  San  Pedro,  as  detailed  by  the  board,  are  taken  into  con 
sideration,  it  would  seem  that  its  selection  has  been  properly  made. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  LINCOLN  CASEY, 

Brigadier-General,  Chief  of  Engineers. 
Hon.  L.  A.   GRANT, 

Acting  Secretary  of  War. 

This  report,  made  by  these  three  officers,  headed  by  Colonel 
Mendell,  is  alluded  to  here  generally  as  the  Mendell  report.  It  is 
proper  for  me  to  state  that,  so  far  as  the  men  who  constituted  this 
board  are  concerned,  that  they  were  not  only  experienced  officers, 
but  Colonel  Mendell  had  lived  upon  the  Pacific  Coast,  where  he  now 
resides,  during  more  than  a  generation,  and  was  absolutely  familiar 
with  all  the  work,  all  the  governmental  projects,  and  all  local  points 
upon  which  money  was  designed  to  be  expended;  and,  as  you  will 
observe,  General  Casey,  in  sending  this  report  to  Congress,  did  not 
merely  transmit  it  without  comment,  but  he  transmitted  it  with 
specific  approval  as  to  site  selection  and  otherwise. 

This  board  recommended  a  semi-detached  breakwater;  or  a 
breakwater,  I  might  say,  more  properly,  in  two  parts,  commencing 
near  Point  Firmin,  the  common  point  of  commencement  of  the  two 
boards,  running  thence  into  the  ocean  southeasterly  to  a  point. 
There  an  opening  of  1,500  feet  was  provided.  Thence,  at  a  point 
1,500  feet  southerly  from  the  end  of  this  part  of  the  proposed  break 
water,  an  extension  thereof  commenced  and  was  designed  to  extend 
easterly  5,600  feet,  to  insure  protection  from  the  southerly  seas. 

The  last  board  which  was  appointed  by  the  Government  recom 
mended  a  breakwater  commencing  at  the  same  shore  point  and  run 
ning  on  a  curve  seaward  and  terminating  at  the  easternmost 
extremity  of  the  detached  section  of  the  Mendell  breakwater. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  331 

After  Colonel  Mendell's  report  had  been  filed  here,  objection  was 
made  to  an  appropriation  for  the  harbor  recommended.  The  maps 
and  illustrations  referred  to  will  be  found  in  House  Executive 
Document  41,  Fifty-second  Congress,  second  session,  and  also  in  the 
Mendell  report  of  September  19,  1890. 

When  the  latter  report  reached  Congress  the  Senator  from 
Maine,  who  I  hope  is  giving  me  his  attention,  suggested  that,  in  his 
opinion,  the  harbor  was  not  properly  located,  and  I  believe  through 
his  instrumentality,  owing  to  his  prominent  position  upon  the  Com 
merce  Committee,  of  which  he  was  then,  as  now,  the  able  and  dis 
tinguished  chairman,  procured  another  board  to  be  appointed;  and 
Congress,  in  compliance  with  his  desire  and  through  his  committee, 
which  acted  in  unison  with  him  in  that  regard,  procured  the  adoption 
of  a  provision  which  will  be  found  in  the  river  and  harbor  act  of 
July  13,  1892,  as  follows: 

The  Secretary  of  War  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  appoint  a 
board  of  five  engineer  officers  of  the  United  States  Army,  whose  duty  it  shall 
be  to  make  a  careful  and  critical  examination  for  a  proposed  deep-water  har 
bor  at  San  Pedro  or  Santa  Monica  bays,  and  to  report  as  to  which  is  the  more 
eligible  location  for  such  harbor  in  depth,  width,  and  capacity  to  accommodate 
the  largest  ocean-going  vessels  and  the  commercial  and  naval  necessities  of 
the  country,  together  with  an  estimate  of  the  cost.  Said  board  of  engineers 
shall  report  the  result  of  its  investigations  to  the  Secretary  of  War  on  or 
before  the  1st  of  November,  1892;  and  $10,000,  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be 
necessary,  are  hereby  appropriated  for  said  purpose. 

A  very  distinguished  board  was  appointed  by  the  then  Secretary 
of  War,  the  honorable  junior  Senator  from  West  Virginia  [Mr. 
ELKINS].  The  board  so  chosen  consisted  of  the  following:  Wil 
liam  P.  Craighill,  colonel  (now  general),  Corps  of  Engineers;  Henry 
M.  Robert,  lieutenant-colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers;  Peter  C.  Hains, 
lieutenant-colonel,  Corps  of  Engineers ;  C.  W.  Raymond,  major, 
Corps  of  Engineers,  and  Thomas  H.  Handbury,  major,  Corps  of 
Engineers. 

This  board  went  to  California,  and  convened  in  San  Francisco 
and  in  Los  Angeles.  After  their  field  work  they  went  to  the  city 
of  New  York,  where  the  various  computations  necessary  to  be  made 
were  completed,  and  finally  prepared  a  most  elaborate  report,  which 
is  known  upon  the  official  files  as  House  of  Representatives 
Executive  Document  No.  41,  Fifty-second  Congress,  second  session. 

I  will  state  that  this  document  is  very  difficult  to  obtain,  but  in 
the  minority  report,  prepared  by  me,  I  have  inserted  the  whole  of 
the  report,  except  the  maps,  and  Senators  can  thus  easily  obtain  the 
body  of  the  report.  If  there  were  available  copies  of  the  report 
itself  the  same  would  be  valuable  because  of  the  maps;  but  I  think 
there  are  but  few  in  existence. 

In  proceeding  to  consider  this  subject  the  board  had  before  it 
not  only  the  knowledge  that  its  views  would  necessarily  be  the  sub 
ject  of  that  criticism  which  is  always  given  to  a  public  document  of 
importance,  but,  in  addition  to  that,  the  board  had  the  advantage 
of  the  comments  which  had  been  made  upon  the  Mendell  report. 
They  were  well  aware  that  it  was  only  by  a  careful,  painstaking, 
skillful,  reliable  examination  and  the  announcement  of  well-founded 
conclusions  that  they  could  hope  to  produce  any  results  beneficial  ' 
to  the  Government.  They  set  about  performing  the  duties  intrusted 


332  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

to  them  in  the  following  way:  As  I  have  said,  they  visited  the  city 
of  San  Francisco  and  the  city  of  Los  Angeles.  I  was  present  for  a 
while  in  the  latter  city  during  their  deliberations.  They  had  before 
them  every  means  of  reaching  the  truth  usually  afforded  to  men  of 
impartiality.  They  did  not  meet  in  starchamber  session;  they  sent 
for  no  favorites  or  particular  friends  of  anybody;  but  they  gave 
public  notice  that  they  would  be  in  the  city  of  Los  Angeles  on  a 
certain  day,  and  that  they  would  expect  all  interested  to  be  present 
and  offer  such  facts  as  might  be  deemed  pertinent  to  the  matter 
in  hand. 

There  were  three  places  competing  for  the  location  of  a  deep- 
sea  harbor  at  that  time.  One  was  Redondo,  one  was  Santa  Monica, 
and  one  was  San  Pedro.  These  interests  were  represented,  not  only 
by  individual  citizens  who  had  their  special  opinions,  but  likewise 
by  lawyers  eminent  at  the  bar  and  engineers  of  standing.  The 
Southern  Pacific  Company  was  cared  for  by  one  of  the  best  lawyers 
in  California,  a  man  apt  and  valuable  in  discussion  and  examination. 
The  Santa  Fe  Railroad,  which  was  interested  at  Redondo,  was  on 
hand,  and  the  same  was  true  of  the  advocates  of  San  Pedro.  They 
produced  there  not  merely  the  views  of  the  business  men  of  that 
community,  but  they  likewise  tendered  the  expert  notions  of  such 
persons  as  were  deemed  competent  to  express  the  same.  Mr.  Hood, 
the  engineer  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  who,  with  Mr.  Cor- 
thell,  has  succeeded  in  impressing  his  notions  favorably  upon  a 
majority  of  the  committee,  was  there.  He  gave  his  conclusions,  he 
had  his  plans,  and  he,  as  he  always  does,  delivered  himself  with 
much  skill  and  ability,  and  presented  the  advantages  of  his 
experience  and  his  wishes  to  the  board  there  assembled. 

I  speak  of  this,  Mr.  President,  because  it  seems  to  be  assumed 
that  there  was  information,  or  that  there  were  perhaps  facts  some 
where  not  brought  to  the  attention  of  this  board.  I  declare  that  I 
have  never  known  a  more  fair,  open,  thorough  hearing  and  examina 
tion  than  was  given  to  these  subjects  at  the  hands  of  the  Craighill 
board.  The  members  of  that  organization  are  not  unknown.  They 
were,  as  were  their  predecessors,  able  and  honorable  men.  It  is 
unnecessary  for  me  to  pass  any  eulogy  upon  the  Corps  of  Engineers 
of  the  United  States  Army.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  intrusted, 
as  they  have  been,  with  the  discharge  of  delicate  and  important 
duties,  and  having  in  their  keeping,  as  they  have  had,  those  interests 
which  involve  the  expenditure  of  millions  of  dollars  of  money,  often 
in  the  midst  of  contention  —  because  money  can  never  be  disbursed 
without  some  dispute  —  there  has  never  been  a  case,  so  far  as  I 
know,  in  the  history  of  the  Government  where  any  ulterior  influence 
has  ever  had  the  slightest  effect  upon  a  member  of  this  remarkable 
corps.  This  fact  justifies  our  pride  and  our  confidence. 

These  engineers  were  not  children  in  the  work ;  they  were  not 
mere  tyros;  they  were  experienced  men.  It  is  said  that  they  are 
fortification  engineers.  It  is  true  they  are  fortification  engineers; 
but  at  the  same  time  there  is  not  one  of  them  who  has  not  been 
in  charge  of  riparian  work,  and  in  charge  of  all  the  important  civil 
engineering  work  of  the  United  States;  and  today  we  are  in  this 
bill  giving  the  outlay  of  the  millions  to  the  members  of  that  corps. 
These  men,  pursuant  to  law  and  under  the  direction  of  the  Chief  of 
Engineers,  decide  as  to  how  this  money  shall  be  expended.  It  is 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  333 

upon  their  skill,  upon  their  integrity,  upon  their  good  judgment,  not 
alone  as  fortification  engineers,  but  as  persons  skilled  in  riparian  and 
harbor  work,  as  men  conversant  with  all  the  subjects  involved  in 
this  bill  requiring  engineering  skill  that  we  rely,  that  Congress 
depends,  and  upon  which  the  country,  too,  rests  in  security. 

Mr.  President,  after  these  examinations,  thus  conducted  by  eight 
of  the  engineers  of  the  United  States  Government,  a  second  report 
was  filed  favoring  the  location  at  San  Pedro,  with  the  changes  I 
have  stated  in  the  form  of  a  curved  breakwater,  commencing  and 
ending  where  the  Mendell  breakwater  commenced  and  terminated. 

I  pause  here.  When  Colonel  Mendell,  who  headed  the  first 
board,  and  who,  I  might  say,  next  to  General  Casey,  was  the  rank 
ing  member  of  the  entire  Engineer  Corps,  made  his  report,  he  con 
sidered  Santa  Monica,  but  the  only  place  suggested  to  him  at  that 
time  for  the  location  of  a  harbor  was  not  at  the  point  which  has  been 
since  selected,  but  was  opposite,  or  nearly  opposite,  the  town  of 
Santa  Monica.  The  present  scheme,  as  I  have  said,  suggests  a 
harbor,  not  in  front  of  the  town,  but  above  it,  at  Port  Los  Angeles, 
the  official  name  of  the  Southern  Pacific  wharf. 

That  location  was  disregarded  by  Colonel  Mendell  because  01 
the  abrupt  and  rocky  shore.  This  statement  can  be  verified  by  refer 
ring  to  page  8  of  Executive  Document  No.  41.  At  the  time  Colonel 
Mendell  reported  there  had  been  no  attention  called  to  the  Southern 
Pacific  wharf,  for  the  obvious  reason  it  had  not  then  been  built, 
but  he  rejected  the  location  where  that  wharf  is  now  found  because 
of  the  abrupt  shore.  At  the  spot  where  the  pier  of  Mr.  Huntington 
stands,  as  shown  by  the  photographs  which  I  have  passed  around 
in  the  Senate,  the  bluff  rises  almost  absolutely  straight  to  the  height 
of  200  feet.  At  the  base  of  that  bluff  there  is  a  comparatively 
narrow  strip  of  land.  The  title  to  that  strip,  so  far  as  private 
property  can  go  toward  the  ocean,  is  vested  in  those  who  own  th<* 
property  above.  That  ownership  is  dominated  by  Mr.  Huntington. 
Of  course,  private  ownership  can  not  prevent  the  taking  of  property 
for  public  use,  and  the  right  of  way  can  be  condemned  over  the  land 
of  private  parties  whenever  a  proper  statutory  and  constitutional 
showing  is  made. 

But  I  am  specially  referring  to  the  physical  condition.  There 
is  a  bluff  rising  200  feet  and  a  narrow  strip  below  it.  Now,  let  us 
assume,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  there  may  be  placed  at  the 
foot  of  that  bluff  a  number  of  railroad  tracks.  It  is  said  by  the 
advocates  of  Santa  Monica  that  eight  or  ten  may  be  constructed 
there.  I  do  not  set  myself  up  for  an  expert,  but  I  do  not  believe 
this.  It  is,  however,  a  mere  matter  of  opinion.  But  there  is  no 
foundation  or  space  there  for  buildings  or  warehouses,  or  any  com 
mercial  edifices  whatever.  There  is  what  we  call  a  small  canyon,  or, 
more  accurately,  a  diminutive  gorge,  coming  in  close  to  this  wharf, 
furnishing  enough  level  land  for  the  erection  by  the  Southern 
Pacific  of  a  small  building  for  engine-house  purposes.  Nothing  else 
can  very  easily  be  erected  there.  At  all  events,  Colonel  Mendell 
thought  the  spot  selected  by  Mr.  Huntington  was  one  which  was 
not  well  suited  to  commercial  purposes  in  the  general  sense,  and  he 
rejected  it,  and  while  preferring  San  Pedro,  gave  as  the  only  possible 
harbor  site  in  Santa  Monica  Bay  a  situation  near  the  town  of  that 
name. 


334  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

I  am  endeavoring  to  explain  this  matter  in  detail.  It  is,  as  I 
consider,  of  a  great  deal  of  importance  that  all  these  circumstances 
shall  be  understood.  The  bill  proposes  the  expenditure  of  more  than 
$3,000,000,  and  I  am  endeavoring  to  present  the  arguments  pro  and 
con  as  well  as  I  can,  that  the  merits  of  the  case  may  be  carefully 
considered. 

When  Colonel  (now  General)  Craighill's  board  met,  the  rail 
road  company  had  not  completed  its  wharf  at  Port  Los  Angeles. 
The  work  had  proceeded  considerably,  and  was  attracted  to  the 
attention  of  the  board.  It  was  to  that  particular  proposition  that 
Mr.  Hood  and  others  who  were  interested  for  the  Southern  Pacific 
addressed  their  remarks.  So  far  as  the  Craighill  board  was  con 
cerned  they  had  the  advantage  of  all  the  facts  and  arguments  which 
the  then  situation  afforded. 

When  that  report  came  before  Congress  no  action  was  taken. 
The  fight  was  still  on.  Its  suggestion  was  no  more  satisfactory  to 
the  advocates  of  the  Santa  Monica  Bay  proposition  than  had  been 
the  judgment  of  the  first  board.  Here  permit  me  to  call  attention 
to  the  report  of  the  majority  of  the  committee  as  to  the  Santa 
Monica  item.  I  will  ask  the  Secretary  to  read  Appendix  H,  page 
401,  of  the  report  of  the  committee.  It  is  not  very  lengthy. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Secretary  will  read  as 
indicated,  if  there  be  no  objection.  The  Chair  hears  none. 

The  SECRETARY  read  as  follows : 

The  river  and  harbor  act  of  1890  authorized  the  aopointment  of  a  board  of 
three  engineer  officers  "  to  examine  the  Pacific  coast  between  Points  Dume 
and  Capistrano,  with  a  view  to  determining  the  best  location  for  a  deep-water 
harbor."  Their  report  was  submitted  December  8,  1891.  In  it  the  board 
stated  that  the  only  eligible  sites  were  at  San  Pedro  and  Santa  Monica  bays, 
set  forth  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  each  as  viewed  by  its  members, 
and  submitted  estimates  for  breakwaters  at  each  place. 

For  the  breakwater  at  Santa  Monica  the  estimate  was  $4,549,494  and  for 
that  at  San  Pedro  $4,137,591.  The  board  expressed  a  preference  for  the  latter, 
This  report  may  be  found  in  the  Engineer's  Report  for  1892,  pages  2631-2639. 

The  Committee  on  Commerce,  when  it  was  considering  the  river  and  har 
bor  bill  of  1892,  after  considering  this  report  and  other  evidence,  concluded 
that  further  light  on  the  subject  was  desirable,  and  in  that  bill  provided  for 
a  second  board,  consisting  of  five  engineer  officers,  to  make  examination  of 
these  bays. 

The  report  of  this  board  was  submitted  October  27,  1892,  and  may  be 
found  in  the  Engineer's  Report  for  1893,  pages  3238-3263.  This  report  dis 
cusses  relative  advantages  of  the  two  bays  at  length,  and  concludes  with  the 
opinion  that  the  location  selected  by  the  board  of  engineers  of  1890  was  the 
more  eligible.  An  estimate  of  $2,885,324  was  submitted  for  a  breakwater  at 
San  Pedro. 

It  was  stoutly  contended  by  persons  having  large  interests  in  the  com 
merce  of  the  Pacific  Coast  and  familiar  with  the  local  conditions  that  the 
opinion  expressed  by  the  Board  was  erroneous;  that  to  act  in  accordance 
with  it  would  be  a  waste  of  money ;  and  in  the  river  and  harbor  act  of  1894 
no  appropriation  for  a  harbor  at  either  place  was  made. 

While  considering  the  bill  herewith  submitted,  exhaustive  hearings  were 
given  by  your  committee  to  parties  representing  both  sides  of  this  vexed 
question,  including  eminent  engineers,  both  civil  and  military,  and  a  conclu 
sion  was  reached,  in  accordance  with  which  a  provision  has  been  inserted 
for  constructing  a  breakwater  at  Santa  Monica  Bay,  at  a  cost  not  to  exceed 
$3,098,000. 

Mr.  WHITE.  When  this  report  was  ordered  to  be  made  in 
the  committee,  I  earnestly  dissented  from  it,  and  reluctantly  reached 
the  conclusion  that  it  would  be  my  duty  to  file  a  minority  report; 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  335 

and  after  consultation  with  those  of  my  associates  who  thought  as 
I  did  and  to  Whom  I  was  able  at  that  time  to  submit  the 
matter  involved,  I,  together  with  the  Senator  from  Arkansas  [Mr. 
BERRY],  the  Senator  from  Louisiana  [Mr.  CAFFERY],  and  the 
Senator  from  Florida  [Mr.  PASCO],  did  file  such  report.  I  was 
not  able  to  present  the  document  at  that  time  to  the  Senator  from 
Missouri  [Mr.  VEST],  who,  generally  speaking,  agrees  with  our 
views,  as  he  was  unavoidably  absent  from  the  city,  and  I  thought 
that  the  river  and  harbor  bill  would  come  up  the  following  day  and 
believed  it  advisable  to  place  the  matter  found  in  the  views  of  the 
minority  upon  the  desks  of  Senators  at  the  earliest  practicable 
moment. 

In  the  minority  report  we  outlined  the  points  upon  which  it 
seemed  the  views  of  the  minority  should  rest.  I  will  read  an  extract 
from  the  report: 

The  undersigned  object  to  the  amendment  to  H.  R.  7977,  making  appro 
priations  for  the  construction,  repair,  and  preservation,  of  certain  public 
works  on  rivers  and  harbors,  and  for  other  purposes,  reported  by  the  major 
ity  of  the  Committee  on  Commerce  to  the  Senate  April  27,  1896,  which  appro 
priates  $3,098,000  for  the  construction  of  a  breakwater  near  Santa  Monica, 
Cal.  This  item  was  not  placed  in  the  bill  at  the  suggestion  of  either  of  the 
Senators  from  California,  nor  at  the  instigation  of  the  Representative  from 
the  Sixth  Congressional  district  of  that  State,  wherein  the  site  involved  is 
located.  On  the  contrary,  both  of  the  Senators  and  the  Representative  objected 
to  the  construction  of  the  breakwater  at  the  point  named  in  the  bill,  and  the 
overwhelming  sentiment  of  the  community  prefers  another  location. 

I  ask  the  Secretary  to  read  to  the  end  of  subdivision  7,  as  show 
ing  the  considerations  which  justify  the  minority  view. 

Mr.  FRYE.  The  Senator  from  California  will  allow  me  to  say 
right  here  that  a  rule  of  the  Senate  adopted  some  time  since  requires 
a  brief  report  as  to  each  item  which  is  contained  in  the  bill.  The 
clerk  of  the  Committee  on  Commerce  always  drafts  those  reports 
from  the  reports  of  the  engineers,  in  order  that  they  may  be  con 
veniently  at  hand  for  any  Senator  to  see.  So  far  as  the  report  with 
respect  to  Santa  Monica  is  concerned,  it  was  made  precisely  in  that 
way.  I  did  not  even  look  at  it ;  I  did  not  even  see  it ;  I  did  not  even 
read  it.  I  never  heard  of  it  until  the  Senator  had  it  read  just  now. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  have  not  said  anything  that  can  involve  a 
criticism  of  the  report. 

Mr.  FRYE.  I  make  the  statement  simply  to  account  for  the 
brevity  of  the  report. 

Mr.  WHITE.     Yes,   sir. 

Mr.  FRYE.  It  is  simply  intended  to  refer  Senators  to  the  doc 
uments  where,  if  they  please,  they  can  find  the  information  in  full. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  was  endeavoring  to  present  the  matter  in 
rather  complete  form,  and  referred  to  the  report  of  the  committee, 
which  of  course  is  very  general  in  its  terms  and  contains  none  of 
the  argumentations  and  none  of  the  reasons  upon  which  the  Senator 
from  Maine  and  other  members  composing  the  majority  of  the  com 
mittee  acted  in  voting  for  the  placing  in  the  bill  of  the  item  which  I 
am  criticising.  I  only  mention  the  report  so  far  as  it  reaches  a  con 
clusion  from  which  I  dissent.  I  have  referred  to  it,  as  I  have  said, 
not  because  it  estops  Senators  from  giving  additional  reasons,  or 
because  it  presents  their  view  of  the  case,  but  merely  because  it  is  a 
part  of  the  record. 


336  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Now,  let  the  Secretary  read  the  extract  from  the  minority  report. 
The    PRESIDING    OFFICER.     The    Secretary    will    read    as 
requested  by  the  Senator  from  California. 
The  SECRETARY  read  as  follows : 

The    following    considerations    are    submitted    as    justifying    this    minority 
report : 

(1)  The  appropriation  as  proposed  is  inadvisable.     The  bill  is  otherwise 
sufficiently   burdened.     The    condition    of    the    Treasury    does    not    warrant    the 
use   of   the   public   money    for   this   particular   work. 

(2)  There  is  no  official  recommendation  or  other  authority  justifying  the 
making  of   this   appropriation. 

(3)  Those  officers  of  the  Government  to  whom  has  been  committed  the 
charge    and    management    of    harbor    improvements,    and    upon    whose    recom 
mendations   Congress  has  been  accustomed  to  act,   have  uniformly  and   unan 
imously   reported  against  an  appropriation  for  a  breakwater  at  Santa   Mbnica. 
There   has   been   no   conflict   in   the   Engineer   Corps   upon  this   topic,   notwith 
standing   strenuous   exertions  by  private  and  powerful   interests,  and  although 
two    boards    specially    commissioned    to    examine    and    report    have    faithfully 
discharged   their   duties. 

(4)  The  action  of  the  committee  establishes  a  dangerous  precedent.     The 
entire  disregard  of  the  carefully  formed  and  unbiased  opinions  of  two  boards 
of  able  engineers  and  the  arbitrary  location  of  this  extensive  work  at  a  point 
demanded  by  private  interests  is  a  dangerous  exercise  of  power  and  threatens 
the   removal   of  needed   protection  to  a   frequently  imperiled   Treasury. 

(5)  The  ultimate  success  of  the  work  authorized  is  problematical. 

(6)  The  proper  site  for  a  deep-sea  harbor  is  not  at  Santa  Monica  but  at 
San    Pedro. 

(7)  If  there  is  doubt  as  to  the  availability  of  San  Pedro  for  a  deep-sea 
harbor,  then  the     expenditure  of  the  appropriation  should  be  made  to  depend 
upon  the  judgment  of  a  commission  provided   for  in  this  act.     Such  commis 
sion,   after   taking   into    consideration   all   the   information   theretofore  collected 
and   that   still   is   obtainable,   should   decide   as   between    San    Pedro  and    Santa 
Monica   and   should    report    to   the    Secretary   of   War,   and   a   contract    should 
thereupon   be   entered    into    for   the   construction   of   a   breakwater   pursuant   to 
such    report. 

Mr.  WHITE.  In  order  to  give  the  Senate  as  full  information 
from  a  scientific  source  as  I  was  able  to  produce,  I  and  my  associates 
in  the  views  of  the  minority  submit  a  synopsis  of  the  Mendell  report 
and  we  proffer  the  report  of  the  Craighill  board  in  full.  These  are 
contained  in  the  minority  suggestions  and  constitute  as  to  extent  the 
main  part  of  the  same. 

Right  here  I  wish  to  allude  to  another  matter.  It  is  said  in  the 
minority  report  that  the  insertion  of  this  item  is  not  owing  to  the 
importunity  or  the  effort  of  either  of  the  Senators  from  California 
or  the  local  Representative.  It  is  pretty  evident  from  my  attitude 
that  it  was  not  put  in  at  my  suggestion.  It  is  equally  certain  that 
it  was  not  placed  there  at  the  instigation  of  my  colleague.  At  the 
hearing  before  the  committee  the  very  able  gentleman  who  represents 
the  Sixth  Congressional  district  of  California  came  before  our  com 
mittee  and  stated  his  views  upon  the  subject.  I  consider  them  of 
sufficient  importance  (they  are  not  very  lengthy)  to  justify  presenting 
at  least  a  part  of  the  same,  and  I  therefore  request  the  Secretary  to 
read  from  Congressman  McLACH LAN'S  statement  to  the  end  of  the 
fifth  line  on  page  5,  Hearings. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Secretary  will  read  as 
indicated,  if  there  be  no  objection.  The  Chair  hears  none. 

The  SECRETARY  read  as  follows : 

Hon.  JAMES  MCL.ACHLAN,  member  of  Congress  from  the  Los  Angeles  dis 
trict,  said: 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  337 

"  MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  GENTLEMEN  :  Perhaps  it  would  be  well  for  me  to 
state  briefly  the  history  of  harbor  matters  in  the  vicinity  of  Los  Angeles. 
Something  like  twenty  years  ago  an  appropriation  was  made  by  Congress  for 
the  improvement  of  the  inside  harbor  at  San  Pedro,  and  appropriations  have 
been  made  from  time  to  time  for  the  improvement  of  that  harbor  until  the 
total  of  the  disbursements  up  to  this  time  aggregate  somewhere  in  the  neigh 
borhood  of  $800,000.  That  was  for  the  improvement  of  the  inside  harbor  at 
San  Pedro.  The  commerce  of  that  locality  is  increasing  rapidly,  and  it  has 
become  evident  to  all  the  people  there  that  larger  facilities  are  necessary  to 
meet  this  increasing  commerce.  The  Government  engineers  made  a  survey 
of  what  is  termed  the  outer  harbor  at  San  Pedro  and  reported  the  feasibility 
of  constructing  a  deep-sea  harbor  in  that  vicinity.  A  short  time  afterwards 
another  survey  was  made  by  Government  engineers,  and  I  think  that  at  that 
time  they  also  made  an  investigation  of  Santa  Monica,  which  is  about  30  miles 
north  of  San  Pedro. 

"  The  reports  of  the  Government  engineers  with  reference  to  the  investi 
gation  of  these  two  harbors  are  matters  of  record  here,  and  can  be  seen  for 
themselves.  It  is  a  fact  that  those  reports  show  that  the  Government  engi 
neers,  on  a  comparison  of  the  two  locations,  made1  a  preference  in  favor  of 
San  Pedro  for  the  second  time.  There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  agitation  over 
the  question  in  the  vicinity  of  Los  Angeles,  and  there  has  been  a  wonderful 
conflict  going  on  since  that  time  between  these  two  localities.  Before  I  was 
nominated  for  Congress  (this  will  show  the  condition  and  temper  of  the  peo 
ple  at  that  time)  I  went  on  the  platform  of  the  Republican  convention  and 
stated  that  if  I  were  elected  I  would  go  to  Congress  and  would  do  all  in  my 
power  to  secure  an  appropriation  for  a  deep-sea  harbor  at  San  Pedro.  I 
think  that  every  candidate  on  every  ticket  nominated  in  that  campaign  two 
years  ago  did  the  same  thing.  The  general  sentiment  of  the  people,  based 
largely,  I  suppose,  upon  the  reports  of  Government  engineers,  was  largely  in 
favor  of  San  Pedro  for  the  deep-sea  harbor.  Those  are  the  conditions  on 
which  I  came  to  Congress. 

"When  I  arrived  at  Washington  in  the  beginning  of  this  session  I  found, 
however,  that  the  friends  of  San  Pedro  were  in  doubt  as  to  the  advisability 
of  our  contending  at  this  session  for  an  appropriation  for  an  outside  harbor 
at  San  Pedro.  After  consultation  with  each  other,  the  friends  of  San  Pedro 
decided  that,  on  account  of  the  depleted  condition  of  the  Treasury,  so  reported, 
and  of  the  economical  ideas  which  seemed  to  pervade  Congress,  it  would 
be  wise  at  this  session  of  Congress  to  confine  their  efforts  to  an  appropriation 
to  deepen  the  inside  harbor  at  San  Pedro  to  18  feet  at  mean  low  water, 
according  to  the  report  of  Colonel  Benyaurd,  who  stated  that,  in  his  judgment, 
it  could  be  done  for  $392,000. 

"  I  want  to  state  to  the  committee  that  I  was  the  last  friend  of  San  Pedro 
who  finally  assented  to  this  course,  and  I  think  the  friends  of  San  Pedro  will 
bear  me  out  in  stating  that.  I  said  to  them  that  I  was  elected  to  come  here  to 
work  for  an  outside  harbor  at  San  Pedro;  that  that  was  my  pledge  to  the 
people,  and  that  now  I  would  not  be  justified  in  confining  my  efforts  to  the 
inside  harbor.  I  was  perhaps  the  last  one  who  finally  consented  to  this  plan, 
because  it  was  the  best  thing  to  do.  I  went  before  the  House  committee  and 
asked  the  improvement  of  the  inside  harbor  of  San  Pedro  and  an  appropria 
tion  of  $392,000  for  that  purpose,  stating  at  the  same  time  that  we  did  not 
forego  our  claims  to  the  outside  harbor  at  San  Pedro.  At  that  hearing  there 
was  no  objection  to  the  request  made  by  us,  and  we  left  the  committee  with 
the  request  that  we  should  receive  an  appropriation  that  would  enable  us  to 
complete  the  inside  harbor  at  San  Pedro. 

"Afterwards,  and  before  the  river  and  harbor  bill  was  reported  to  the 
House,  it  was  learned  that  the  committee  had  put  in  the  bill  an  appropria 
tion  for  the  full  amount  that  was  asked  for  the  inside  harbor  at  San  Pedro, 
and  had  also  included  an  appropriation  (as  we  are  credibly  informed)  of 
about  $2,800,000  for  the  construction  of  an  outside  harbor  at  Santa  Monica. 
I  am  bound  here  to  state,  as  the  Representative  from  that  district,  that  I 
never  asked  for  an  appropriation  for  Santa  Monica.  We  simply  confined 
our  efforts  to  the  inside  harbor  at  San  Pedro.  And  I  am  in  duty  bound  to 
say,  as  a  Representative  from  that  district,  coming  fresh  from  the  people 
that  I  am  not  here  today  asking  for  an  appropriation  for  Santa  Monica,  but  that 
I  am  here  asking  for  an  appropriation  to  continue  that  inside  harbor  at  San 
Pedro  according  to  the  plan  of  Colonel  Benyaurd.  And  if  in  the  wisdom 


338  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

of  this  committee  it  can  see  its  way  clear  to  give  us  an  appropriation  for  an 
outside  harbor,  I  am  bound,  under  my  pledges,  to  ask  you  to  give  that  ap 
propriation  for  the  construction  of  the  outside  wall  or  breakwater  at  San 
Pedro." 

Mr.  WHITE.  In  addition  to  the  extract  which  has  just  been 
read,  I  make  the  following"  quotation  from  Mr.  MCLACHLAN  : 

Senator  ELKINS.  You  say  that  you  appear  here  to  get  an  appropriation  for 
the  inside  harbor  at  San  Pedro,  and  that  you  would  like  an  appropriation  for 
the  outside  harbor  as  well. 

Mr.  MCLACHLAN.  All  the  friends  of  San  Pedro  consider  that  on  account 
of  the  economical  tendency  of  this  Congress,  and  on  account  of  the  condition 
of  the  Treasury,  it  would  be  wise  to  confine  our  efforts  to  getting  an  appropria 
tion  of  $392,000  for  the  inside  harbor;  but  since  we  discovered  a  disposition 
on  the  part  of  the  House  to  give  more  to  the  vicinity  of  Los  Angeles,  I  say, 
as  a  representative  of  that  people  coming  here  with  those  pledges,  and  that 
if  there  is  to  be  an  appropriation  for  an  outer  sea  wall,  I  ask  it  for  the  begin 
ning  of  the  outer  harbor  at  San  Pedro. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  do  not  expect  an  appropriation  of  some  $3,000,- 
ooo  for  Wilmington  Harbor  provided  the  Government  continues  to  make  a 
deep-sea  harbor  at  San  Pedro? 

Mr.  MCL,ACHI,AN.  Yes :  because  we  believe  that  one  of  the  most  practical 
advantages  to  the  deep-sea  harbor  will  be  the  completion  of  the  inside  harbor 
at  San  Pedro. 

Now,  the  Senate  will  understand  that  the  $392,000  referred  to 
in  this  testimony  by  Congressman  MCLACHLAN  is  provided  for  in 
the  pending  bill;  that  is  to  say,  there  is  an  appropriation  of  $50,000 
and  a  continuing  contract  for  an  amount  making  the  whole  $392,000 
for  the  improvement  of  the  inner  harbor  which  I  have  described,  and 
a  photograph  of  which  is  here  before  the  Senate,  and  his  statement 
is  therefore  fully  supported. 

I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  what  I  consider  an 
extraordinary  feature  of  this  case  —  a  peculiar  feature  of  the  con 
troversy.  It  is  and  would  be  in  any  instance  rather  singular  that 
the  Congress  of  the  United  States  should  find  it  necessary  to  make 
an  appropriation  of  public  money  in  the  face  of  the  desire  of  local 
representatives,  and  it  is  almost  impossible  that  such  a  condition  of 
things  can  ever  exist  unless  there  is  some  uncommon  influence  not 
usually  applicable  and  not  generally  brought  into  exercise. 

Let  us  examine  this  situation.  In  the  report  of  the  committee, 
from  which  I  have  read  the  general  synopsis,  we  find  the  following: 

It  was  stoutly  contended  by  persons  having  large  interests  in  the  com 
merce  of  the  Pacific  Coast  and  familiar  with  the  local  conditions  that  the 
opinion  expressed  by  the  board  was  erroneous ;  that  to  act  in  accordance 
with  it  would  be  a  waste  of  money. 

The  opinions  thus  expressed  were  the  expressions  of  the  South 
ern  Pacific  Railroad  Company,  and  that  persistency  which  has  been 
referred  to  has  been  and  is  the  persistency,  the  potential  persistency, 
of  that  company.  I  recognize  the  right  of  every  man  to  proceed 
upon  proper  lines  to  gain  all  grants  from  Congress  which  his 
eloquence  and  skill,  his  arguments  and  persuasion,  may  be  able  to 
obtain,  but  I  do  not  recognize  the  right  of  such  person  to  control  me 
without  some  argument  demonstrating  that  the  appropriation  of  this 
large  amount  of  money  in  defiance  of  official  recommendation  is  for 
the  public  interest. 

Let  me  go  a  step   further  in  the  history  of  this  matter.     Mr. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  339 

McIvACHUN  in  his  lucid  statement  has  perhaps  made  the  matter 
plain  enough,  but  I  wish  to  allude  to  the  subject,  for  I  desire  the 
Senate  and  every  member  of  it  to  understand  the  situation,  and  so 
understanding  it  if  members  of  this  body  are  willing  to  take  the 
responsibility  of  voting  away  $3,098,000  it  is  their  affair,  not  mine. 
But  I  shall  give  the  facts  as  I  know  them,  and  I  shall  state  nothing 
that  I  do  not  believe  to  be  true,  and  I  shall  gladly  correct  any  state 
ments  which  I  may  discover  to  be  unfounded. 

When  the  present  Congress  convened  the  situation  of  this  matter 
was  briefly  as  I  shall  state  it.  Nothing  had  been  done  upon  the 
report  of  the  board  of  engineers  and  no  appropriation  had  been  made. 
In  the  meantime  Colonel  Benyaurd  had  devised  the  project  for  the 
improvement  of  the  inner  harbor  to  which  I  have  referred.  I  called 
for  that  project,  which  was  filed  away  in  the  War  Department  by 
resolution  which  passed  the  Senate  at  the  close  of  the  last  session. 
The  report  of  Colonel  Benyaurd  was  thereafter  incorporated  in  the 
official  records  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  and  when  the  river  and 
harbor  bill  came  before  the  committee  of  the  House  for  consideration 
I  appeared  there  and  so  also  did  my  colleague,  and  the  distinguished 
member  of  the  House  already  referred  to  was  likewise  there.  We 
presented  our  claims  for  the  further  improvement  of  the  inner  har 
bor  at  San  Pedro  or  Wilmington  —  I  use  the  words  indiscriminately 
—  the  Benyaurd  project,  against  which  there  was,  so  far  as  we 
knew,  or  now  know,  no  disclosed  objection. 

I  stated  there,  as  others  did,  that  in  view  of  the  depleted  con 
dition  of  the  Treasury,  and  because  we  deemed  it  wholly  unlikely 
that  Congress  would  care  to  embark  in  so  expensive  a  work  as  a 
three-million-dollar  outer  harbor  at  this  time,  we  should  be  satisfied 
if  we  were  given  a  continuing  contract  for  the  inner  harbor  at  San 
Pedro,  involving  the  $392,000.  We  left.  Nothing  more  was  heard 
by  me  of  this  affair  until  I  learned  indirectly  that  a  provision  had 
been  printed  in  the  draft  of  the  river  and  harbor  bill  for  two  million 
eight  hundred  and  odd  thousand  dollars  for  a  harbor  at  Santa 
Monica  or  Port  Los  Angeles,  and  that  $392,000  had  also,  it  was 
rumored,  been  appropriated  for  San  Pedro. 

Thus  I  discovered  that  to  some  extent  my  State  occupied  a 
higher  plane  than  that  upon  which  other  Commonwealths  have  been 
in  the  habit  of  treading;  that  while  there  were  some  who  were  forced 
to  solicit  appropriations  and  to  make  arguments  to  obtain  the  same, 
in  my  instance  such  favors  came  not  only  unsolicited  but  unwanted. 

Mr.  GRAY.     Thrust  on  you. 

Mr.  WHITE.  However,  a  great  local  disturbance  arose  in  Los 
Angeles.  As  shown  by  the  hearings  printed  by  the  Committee  on 
Commerce,  a  telegram  was  sent  to  Los  Angeles  stating  that  if  the 
people  there  would  unite  they  could  have  the  inner  harbor  at  San 
Pedro,  but  they  must  take  it  with  the  outer  harbor  at  Santa  Monica. 

Mr.  GEORGE.     Who  sent  that  telegram? 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  Representative.  I  will  refer  to  the  page  in 
a  moment.  The  result  of  it  all  was  that  the  River  and  Harbor  Com 
mittee  dropped  the  whole  matter,  leaving  only  an  appropriation  of 
$50,000  for  the  inner  harbor  at  San  Pedro  on  the  Benyaurd  proposi 
tion  and  no  continuing  contract  at  all.  Indeed,  my  State  was  not 
honored  with  any  continuing  contract  in  the  bill  as  it  came  to  this 
end  of  the  Capitol.  When  the  measure  reached  the  Committee  on 
Commerce  the  fight  was  renewed. 


340  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

I  neglected  to  say  that  the  River  and  Harbor  Committee  had 
the  benefit  (not  in  my  presence,  however)  of  the  testimony  of 
Messrs.  Corthell  and  Hood,  whose  views  have  been  published  by  the 
House.  The  combat  was  thence  transferred  to  the  Committee  on 
Commerce.  Upon  a  day  fixed  by  common  consent  representatives 
from  the  State  of  California  were  brought  here,  business  men,  per 
sons  of  standing  and  integrity,  who  represented  both  sides  of  the 
question.  Some  of  these  gentlemen  (and  their  evidence  is  in  the 
hearings  here)  argued  in  favor  of  Santa  Monica  and  some  in  favor 
of  San  Pedro. 

Petitions  were  filed ;  telegrams  without  number  were  received. 
One  of  my  constituents  stated  to  me,  "  Let  us  have  the  appropriation, 
even  if  it  is  to  go  to  Arroyo  Seco,"  which  means  "  dry  creek." 
The  impression  prevailed  in  the  community  that  there  was  an  oppor 
tunity  to  get  $3,000,000,  and  some  thought  that  it  was  useless  to 
longer  make  a  fight  for  San  Pedro,  where  the  vast  majority  of  the 
people  wanted  the  harbor.  Sooner  than  lose  the  appropriation  for 
the  inner  harbor,  and  this  large  amount  of  money  promised  to  be 
disbursed  in  the  locality,  they  were  willing  to  locate  a  harbor  any 
where. 

Of  course  that  did  not  represent  the  universal  sentiment.  I  may 
say  the  record  here  shows  a  telegram  signed  by  two  or  three 
hundred  of  the  leading  business  men  of  Los  Angeles  insisting  upon 
my  advocacy  of  both  appropriations  for  San  Pedro.  But  if  I  had 
not  received  that  telegram  I  should  not  have  changed  my  position. 
It  can  not  alter  my  attitude  standing  here  in  the  discharge  of  a 
public  duty  merely  because  a  vote  of  mine  is  to  prevent  the  expen 
diture  of  money  in  my  locality.  If  I  know  that  that  expenditure 
is  not  to  be  made  in  the  public  interest  —  that  it  is  sought  for  a 
private  purpose  —  I  will  not  vote  for  it.  Were  I  outside  of  official 
life,  selfishness,  which  dominates  many  of  us,  and  to  some  extent 
influences  us  all,  might  perhaps  lead  me  to  applaud  an  act  which 
would  involve  local  disbursement  of  such  an  elaborate  sum.  But  I 
could  not  find  myself  authorized,  and  do  not  deem  myself  empowered, 
to  appropriate  one  cent  unless  I  find  it  to  be  for  a  public  purpose 
and  for  the  public  interest. 

Mr.  Lankershim,  a  very  prominent  business  man  of  my  city  and 
a  person  of  excellent  standing,  was  before  our  committee  and  was 
examined,  and  favored  the  selection  of  Santa  Monica.  The  dis 
tinguished  Senator  from  Arkansas  [Mr.  BERRY]  asked  him  the  ques 
tion  whether  it  was  not  a  fact  that  the  people  in  that  section  of  the 
State  had  finally  come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  had  better  take 
the  appropriation,  because  influences  surrounding  the  case  were  such 
as  to  render  it  impossible  to  authorize  the  outlay  elsewhere.  I  refer 
to  the  exact  language.  It  can  be  found  in  Hearings,  page  64. 

Senator  BERRY.  You  say  now  you  have  changed  your  mind  and  that 
others  have  changed  their  minds. 

Mr.  BERRY.     Read   just   before  —  the   first   question. 
Mr.  WHITE.     Oh,  yes. 

Senator  BERRY.  You  worked  for  years,  did  you  not,  trying  to  get  this 
deep-water  harbor  at  San  Pedro? 

Mr.  LANKERSHIM.    Yes. 

Senator  BERRY.  You  say  now  that  you  have  changed  your  mind  and 
that  others  have  changed  their  minds.  Is  not  that  change  of  mind  attribut- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  341 

able  in  a  large  measure  to  the  fact  that  these  people  have  come  to  believe 
that  the  influences  here  at  Washington  were  so  strong  against  San  Pedro  that 
that  harbor  could  not  be  built,  and  you  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was 
better  to  take  Santa  Monica  than  none?  Is  not  that  a  fact? 

Mr.  LANKERSHIM.  Well,  it  is  somewhat  so.  I  was  a  good  deal  more  in 
favor  of  San  Pedro  before  I  came  here,  but  since  I  have  heard  the  reports 
of  these  engineers  I  never  will  believe  another  day  that  a  port  can  be  built 
at  San  Pedro. 

And  so  on. 

Mr.  GRAY.     What  engineers  does  he  refer  to? 

Mr.  FRYE.     The   civil   engineers. 

Mr.  WHITE.     He  refers  to  Corthell. 

Mr.  FRYE.     Corthell  and  Hood. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Corthell  and  Hood.  They  were  the  engineers 
of  the  company. 

Mr.  GEORGE.     Of   what   company? 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  Southern  Pacific.  Now,  Mr.  President, 
taking  the  situation  as  I  find  it,  I  have  no  hesitancy  in  the  world  in 
asserting  that,  as  between  the  location  at  San  Pedro  and  Santa  Mon 
ica,  were  the  people  of  my  section  permitted  to  make  a  choice  there 
would  be  an  overwhelming  vote  in  favor  of  San  Pedro.  But  there 
are  those,  and  it  can  not  be  denied,  who  think  that  under  prevailing 
conditions  they  can  never  obtain  their  preference,  and  they  conclude 
that  it  is  better  to  accept  the  situation  such  as  it  is  without  further 
contest  and  worry.  That  situation  can  not  affect  me ;  it  should 
affect  nobody.  The  question  before  the  Senate  is  where  ought 
this  money  to  be  put  if  it  is  expended  at  all.  Mr.  Hood  and  Mr. 
Corthell  were  practically  before  both  committees ;  Mr.  Corthell  was 
personally  before  both,  and  Mr.  Hood's  statement  was  before  both. 
These  gentlemen,  who  were  heard  in  behalf  of  the  railroad  company, 
explained  their  preferences,  and  Mr.  Corthell  not  only  made  his 
argument  before  the  committees,  but  as  soon  as  the  minority  report 
already  mentioned  was  filed  I  encountered  in  the  hands  of  an 
employee  of  the  Senate  a  printed  document  indorsed  as  follows : 

DEEP-SEA    HARBOR    IN    SOUTHERN    CALIFORNIA. 

Letter  of  Mr.  E.  L.  Corthell,  civil  engineer,  to  United  States  Senators  WHITE, 
BERRY,  CAFFERY,  and  PASCO,  of  the  committee  on  Commerce,  relating  to 
their  minority  report  on  the  amendment  to  H.  R.  7977,  making  appropria 
tion  for  the  construction  of  a  breakwater  at  Santa  Monica,  Cal.,  May  i, 
1896. 

Turning  the  title  page,  which  appeared  to  indicate  a  report  from 
the  third  house,  I  found  the  interior  decoration  as  follows : 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C,  May  i,  1896. 
Hon.   STEPHEN  M.  WHITE, 

United  States  Senate,   City. 

DEAR  SIR  :  On  April  29  last  you,  representing  yourself  and  Senators 
BERRY,  CAFFERY,  and  PASCO,  presented  a  minority  report  upon  a  location  for 
a  deep-sea  harbor  on  the  southern  coast  of  California. 

As  the  facts  and  opinions  which  I  have  laid  before  the  Senate  and  House 
committees,  and  I  may  say  the  War  Department,  have  been  called  in  ques 
tion  in  your  report,  it  seems  to  me  proper  that  I  should  at  least  remove 
some  misunderstandings  that  evidently  exist  in  the  minds  of  yourself  and  your 
associates. 

Then  he  proceeds  in  this  charitable  enterprise  as  follows: 


342  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

From  the  time  that  I  first  appeared  before  the  Senate  Committee  on  Com 
merce,  on  June  19,  1894,  I  have  frankly  stated  my  professional  connection 
with  this  question,  both  to  the  committees  and  to  the  War  Department. 
Most  of  the  statements  which  I  have  made  are  recorded  in  the  printed  reports 
of  hearings.  It  is  only  necessary  now  to  refer  to  the  following,  from  an  official 
communication  addressed  by  me  to  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  December  13,  1895 : 

"  Early  in  the  spring  of  1894  I  was  requested  by  Senator  FRYE,  of  the  Com 
merce  Committee,  and  so  stated  by  him  before  his  committee,  and  by  Mr. 
BLANCHARD,  at  that  time  chairman  of  the  Rivers  and  Harbors  Committee, 
and  afterwards  by  Mr.  CATCHINGS,  subsequently  appointed  chairman  of  that 
committee,  to  make  a  careful  investigation  in  reference  to  the  question  of 
location  and  plans  for  a  protected  harbor  on  the  coast  of  Southern  California." 

This  extract,  it  will  be  observed,  is  what  Mr.  Corthell  styles  u  an 
official  communication." 

Mr.  GEORGE.     Who  is  Mr.  Corthell? 

Mr.  WHITE.  He  is  an  employee,  in  this  matter,  of  the  South 
ern  Pacific  Railroad  Company. 

Mr.  GEORGE.     Has  he  any  connection  with  the  Government? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  am  trying  now  to  work  out  his  connection. 
I  am  endeavoring  to  proceed  through  the  sinuosities  of  the  situation 
to  a  conclusion  or  to  some  tangible  result.  In  other  words,  I  am 
trying  to  anchor  him  with  reference  to  his  opinions.  This  alleged 
official  communication  was  sent  in  December  13,  1895.  Now,  he 
proceeds : 

I  was  aware  of  the  decided  difference  of  opinion  existing  even  then  (1894) 
as  between  Santa  Monica  and  San  Pedro. 

Mr.  Huntington,  president  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  had  also 
asked  me,  as  I  was  about  to  start  for  California,  to  examine  the  question  of 
harbor  location  — 

It  will  be  observed  that  this  was  a  mere  incidental  request  — 

as  I  was  about  to  start  for  California,  to  examine  the  question  of  harbor  loca 
tion,  but  I  considered  that  I  was  making  the  examination  for  the  committees 
of  Congress  — 

We  will  see  what  there  is  in  that  pretentious  and  presumptuous 
claim  in  a  moment  — 

and  I  determined  to  investigate  the  matter  exhaustively,  to  decide  the  impor 
tant  questions  involved  carefully  and  impartially,  and  to  present  my  opinion 
to  the  committees.  It  therefore  seems  unnecessary  for  me  to  repeat  now  that 
had  I  found  the  location  at  San  Pedro  more  advantageous  than  at  Santa 
Monica,  I  should  have  reported  so. 

This  is  his  letter  to  me  which  was  never  delivered,  as  I  have 
stated,  through  any  intentional  instrumentality  of  its  author.  Now, 
let  us  look  a  little  further.  This  gentleman  was  interrogated  upon 
this  subject  when  he  appeared  before  the  Committee  on  Commerce. 
I  refer  to  the  hearings.  When  he  took  the  stand,  so  to  speak, 
although  perhaps  that  expression  is  technically  inaccurate  (no  one 
was  sworn,  and  the  statements  of  the  gentlemen  who  appeared  there 
were  all  accepted  without  any  other  verification  than  their  word)  he 
stated,  I  refer  to  page  36  of  the  hearings  before  the  committee  — 

MR.  CHAIRMAN  AND  GENTLEMEN  OF  THE  COMMITTEE:  You  recollect  that 
about  two  years  ago  I  made  an  examination  of  these  conditions  in  Califor 
nia —  as  exhaustive  an  examination  as  if  I  had  been  employed  professionally 
on  the  subject.  I  did  it  with  the  approval  of  three  leading  members  of  the 
Senate  and  House  committees,  and  I  came  before  you  on  the  I9th  of  June, 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  343 

1894,  with  a  statement  of  what  I  had  found  and  of  my  opinion  in  regard  to 
where  this   deep-sea  harbor  should  be  located. 

Later  on  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Arkansas  [Mr. 
BERRY]  asked  the  witness  the  following  questions: 

Senator  BERRY.  In  the  beginning  of  your  remarks  you  said  something 
about  going  out  there  at  the  instance  of  Senators.  Did  I  understand  you  to 
say  so  ? 

Mr.   CORTHEI.L.     I  meant  with  the  approval  of   Senators. 

Senator  BERRY.     They  did  not  employ  you  to  go  out  there,  did  they? 

Mr.    CORTHELL.     No,    sir. 

Senator  BERRY.    Who  employed  you? 

Mr.  CORTHELL.  Nobody  at  the  time;  but  afterwards  Mr.  Huntington  paid 
my  expenses.  Mr.  Huntington  asked  me,  in  the  first  place,  if  I  would  make 
the  examination.  I  said  that  I  did  not  think  I  would  like  to  do  so  in  my 
position,  because  it  would  be  officious  if  I  should  make  an  examination  and  ask 
to  he  heard  before  a  committee.  I  said :  "  If  Senator  FRYE  and  Mr.  BLANCH- 
ARD  (then  chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on  Rivers  and  Harbors)  would 
like  me  to  make  an  examination  I  will  make  it." 

Senator  BERRY.     There  was  no  order  of  Congress  for  you  to  make  it? 

Mr.  CORTHELL.  No;  I  received  a  telegram  from  Mr.  CATCHINGS  while  at 
San  Diego,  asking  my  opinion,  but  expressly  stating  that  he  did  not  intend 
to  employ  me,  but  that  he  wished  me  to  give  my  opinion. 

Senator  WHITE  of  California.  You  had  done  some  work  for  Mr.  Hunt-- 
ington  before  that? 

Mr.  CORTHELL.  I  was,  for  four  years,  when  obtaining  a  charter  from 
Congress,  the  representative  of  six  railroads  at  New  Orleans,  and  the  president 
of  the  Southern  Bridge  and  Railroad  Company  while  the  charter  was  being 
obtained  for  a  railroad  bridge  over  the  Mississippi,  it  was  (by  previous  agree 
ment  among  the  directors  of  the  companies)  then  transferred  to  the  rail 
road  interests.  That  was  the  object  of  getting  the  charter.  I  resigned  my 
position  as  president  and  was  re-elected  chief  engineer,  and  Mr.  Huntington 
was  elected  president.  Those  are  my  relations  with  him.  Of  course  I  was 
very  glad,  on  account  of  these  relations,  to  do  anything  which  I  could  prop 
erly  do  that  Mr.  Huntington  requested. 

Mr.  President,  what  justification  is  there  for  the  assertion  that 
this  was  an  official  investigation?  I  appeal  not  only  to  lawyers,  but 
to  those  used  to  analyzing  human  statements  and  to  determining 
the  candor  or  want  of  candor  of  individual  declaration,  and  I  ask, 
Does  any  man  believe  that  the  person  who  thus  addresses  this  com 
munication  to  me  and  other  Senators  is  any  more  than  the  employee 
of  the  interest  in  this  case,  which  is  making  this  determined  contest 
for  personal  profit?  Is  there  any  question  about  it?  Official  posi 
tion  !  Who  conferred  it  ?  I  repudiate,  deny,  and  controvert  the 
assertion  that  the  Committee  on  Commerce  ever  authorized  this  man 
to  make  any  investigation.  They  never  did. 

Does  anyone  suppose  that  in  the  year  1894  I,  conscious  of  this 
man's  relation  to  an  interested  party,  ever  would  have  consented  to 
or  permitted  without  emphatic  demurrer  his  appointment  in  any  such 
confidential  place  ?  Does  anyone  believe  that  I  would  have  been  will 
ing  to  intrust  my  constituents'  interests  to  one  whom  I  knew  was  in 
the  pay  of  a  person  toward  whom  my  constituents  occupied  an 
antagonistic  attitude?  Senators,  indeed,  might,  if  they  chose,  ask 
Corthell  to  make  the  investigation.  That  was  their  individual  affair. 
He  was  first  sought  by  Mr.  Huntington.  Mr.  Huntington  had  a 
right  to  ask  him.  It  was  Mr.  Huntington's  affair  properly  to  exam 
ine  into  the  case  and  to  employ  the  most  skilled  men  he  could  obtain. 
Mr.  Corthell  is  a  very  able  and  skillful  engineer,  and  for  years,  as  his 
testimony  shows,  he  has  been  associated  with  Mr.  Huntington.  He 


344  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

went  out  to  my  State  and  he  made  this  inspection,  and  his  expenses 
were  paid  by  Mr.  Huntington.  I  should  have  had  a  great  deal  more 
regard  for  Mr.  Corthell  if  he  had  come  out,  like  expert  witnesses 
who  are  candid  ought  always  to  come  out,  and  said :  "  Yes,  I  was 
employed  and  well  paid  for  the  work  I  did;  it  is  good  work,  and  I 
will  stand  by  it  and  demonstrate  that  I  am  right."  There  would 
have  been  something  about  that  which  would  have  commended  the 
man's  utterances  to  me.  But  he  has  evaded  the  whole  story. 

Mr.  President,  it  would  have  been  singular  had  this  man  been 
sent  to  California  officially  to  inspect  a  public  improvement  by  gen 
tlemen  who  were  authorized  themselves  to  act  in  committee  upon 
that  subject,  without  any  regard  in  their  committee  that  it  was  so 
done.  There  never  was  any  such  appointment.  There  never  was 
any  such  authority.  I  have  resided  for  half  of  my  life,  for  all  my 
manhood's  days,  in  the  county  of  Los  Angeles,  where  this  improve 
ment  is  intended  to  be  made.  I  know  its  people  pretty  well.  I 
know  the  surroundings  of  the  case  pretty  well.  My  associate  has 
lived  upon  that  coast  since  1855.  He  possesses  technical  and  nauti 
cal  knowledge  regarding  it  which  no  other  man  here  enjoys.  This 
he  has  learned  in  the  course  of  his  business.  The  Representative  of 
that  district,  fresh  from  the  people,  lives  in  the  city  of  Los  Angeles. 
Ought  not  we  know  perhaps  something  about  it?  Were  we  not 
worthy  of  consultation?  There  is  an  alleged  public  officer,  a  man 
who  professes  to  be  an  employee  of  the  Government,  who  talks  about 
his  official  communication,  who  visits  our  home  and  determines  the 
merits  of  our  arguments  without  even  identifying  himself.  Mr. 
President,  his  investigation  was  uninvited  by  any  committee,  unsanc- 
tioned  by  any  law.  He  was  Mr.  Huntington's  agent  then  as  he  is 
now. 

Mr.  President,  in  so  far  as  his  statements  disclose  facts  sup 
ported  by  reason  so  far  are  those  statements  valuable.  In  so  far  as 
he  attempts  to  put  himself  in  a  situation  of  impartiality  and  fairness 
his  efforts  must  prove  unavailing.  He  is  worthy  of  credit,  as  I  say, 
as  far  as  he  is  supported,  but  he  is  not  entitled  to  that  degree  of  con 
fidence  pertaining  to  an  impartial  man  who,  in  the  discharge  of  a 
public  function,  knows  no  master  save  his  conscience,  and  does  noth 
ing  merely  to  win  individual  monetary  emolument.  The  one  is  ruled 
by  a  lofty  sense  of  duty  to  his  country,  the  other  toils  for  the  com 
mendations  of  selfishness. 

Therefore,  Mr.  President,  we  must  proceed  to  examine  such 
arguments  as  are  adduced  in  support  of  these  propositions  upon  their 
merits,  without  supposing  that  there  is  any  official  sanction  for  the 
report  of  the  committee  beyond  that  sanction  which  follows  from 
our  acts  as  Senators.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  committee  has  had 
the  regular  reports  of  two  boards  of  engineers;  that  their  reports 
have  been  adverse  to  Santa  Monica;  that  those  politically  authorized 
are  similarly  minded.  Here  I  pause.  I  do  not  contend  that  any 
Senator  or  Representative  has  an  absolute  right  to  dictate  to  a  com 
mittee  where  public  funds  shall  be  expended.  As  a  member  of  the 
Commerce  Committee  I  am  only  entitled  to  vote  once  —  to  vote  my 
own  notions  —  and  I  have  no  right  to  register  the  judgment  of  any 
other  member.  At  the  same  time,  perhaps,  the  custom  which  has 
grown  up  because  of  the  teachings  of  experience  is  not  a  bad  one  — 
to  pay  some  little  respect  to  recommendations  and  representations  of 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  345 

those    who    speak   within   this    Chamber   of   the    necessities    of   their 
homes. 

But  what  is  there  before  this  body  to  offset  the  official  disap 
proval  from  these  two  boards  concurred  in  by  General  Casey  —  dis 
tinguished  boards,  as  I  have  said  —  one  presided  over  by  the  present 
General  of  the  Engineer  Corps?  Is  there  anything  official  to  cancel 
this  disapprobation?  I  have  disposed  of  the  claim  that  Mr.  Corthell 
represents  anybody  officially,  unless  it  be  the  railroad  company.  Mr. 
Hood,  an  able  engineer,  gives  his  views.  He  is  the  chief  engineer, 
and  an  exceedingly  good  one,  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company.  We 
have  his  evidence. 

Mr.  President,  we  have  cast  aside  the  reports  of  our  engineers, 
and  of  the  Chief  of  Engineers,  and  the  views  of  those  locally  inter 
ested,  and  we  have  adopted  the  conclusions  of  those  who  are  person 
ally,  individually,  and  financially  interested.  We  have  refused  to 
appropriate  the  public  money  and  place  it  where  it  is  said  by  impartial 
and  competent  Government  officers  its  disbursement  would  be  of  use 
to  the  public,  and  we  have  taken  it  and  placed  it  where  these  officers 
have  said  it  should  not  be  expended.  Perhaps  we  are  right,  perhaps 
the  committee  is  right;  but  let  it  be  plainly  shown  before  we  act 
affirmatively;  let  it  appear  most  clearly  that  the  committee  is 
obviously  right.  No  dubious  evidence  will  suffice  to  justify  such  a 
singular  course. 

Mr.  GRAY.  Let  me  ask  the  Senator  if  there  is  no  recommen 
dation  of  the  board  of  engineers  or  other  Government  authority  in 
favor  of  the  appropriation  for  Santa  Monica? 

Mr.  WHITE.  None  on  earth.  Not  only  that,  but  it  is  sought 
to  appropriate  $3,098,000  for  this  improvement,  when  there  is  no 
official  estimate  of  the  cost  of  that  improvement  or  recommendation 
for  it. 

This  is  not  a  case,  Mr.  President,  where  a  Senator  rises  from 
his  seat  and  says,  "  Here  is  something  of  necessity,  here  is  something 
about  which  I  know  everything,"  and  there  is  no  dispute,  and  he  is 
asked,  "  Have  you  a  recommendation  ?  "  "  No ;  there  is  no  recom 
mendation,  but  I  am  cognizant  of  the  facts;  they  are  so  and  so." 
The  Senate  sometimes,  in  such  cases  where  the  amount  is  small,  takes 
the  risk  and  perhaps  makes  the  appropriation.  But  the  present  is 
an  instance  where  there  is  negation.  This  is  a  case  where  the 
authorities  to  whom  we  have  committed  this  matter,  in  an  advisory 
sense  it  is  true,  but  to  whom  nevertheless  we  have  committed  this 
matter,  have  reported  adversely.  We  are  to  make  this  enormous 
expenditure,  not  only  without  their  recommendation,  but  in  the  face 
of  their  condemnation. 

Mr.  GEORGE.     Will  the  Senator  allow  me  a  moment? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  GEORGE.  I  only  wish  to  ask  a  question;  I  know  nothing 
about  the  matter  and  I  have  not  heard  all  the  debate.  Is  it  a  fact 
that  two  boards  of  United  States  engineers,  acting  under  oath,  have 
reported  against  the  appropriation  recommended  by  the  committee? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GEORGE.  Is  it  a  fact  that  both  the  Senators  from  Califor 
nia  and  the  Representative  in  the  other  house  of  Congress  from  that 
district,  are  against  the  appropriation  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.     Yes,  sir. 
23 


346  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  GEORGE.  Is  it  a  fact  that  there  is  no  other  evidence 
upon  which  the  Senate  is  asked  to  act  except  the  statement  of  two 
men  who  are  in  the  employ  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Railroad  Com 
pany? 

Mr.  WHITE.  To  be  fair,  I  would  say  there  is  other  evidence. 
There  are  gentlemen  who  testified  before  the  committee;  and,  in 
addition  to  that,  there  is  the  personal  knowledge,  or  whatever  it  may 
be,  of  those  who  have  seen  the  locality,  and  who,  upon  that,  have 
formed  their  views. 

Mr.  GEORGE.     I  mean  any  professional,  any  engineer  reports? 

Mr.  WHITE.  No,  sir.  I  will  say,  however,  that  there  are  gen 
tlemen  upon  the  committee  who  have  seen  this  location,  notably  the 
distinguished  chairman,  who  has  examined  it  personally,  and  who 
has  reached  a  conclusion  as  the  result  of  his  examination.  There  are 
other  members  of  the  committee  who  are  also  familiar  with  it,  very 
familiar  with  it.  The  Senator  from  Nevada  [Mr.  JONES]  is  very 
familiar  with  it,  knows  the  ground  thoroughly,  and  has  for  many 
years  known  it. 

Mr.  BATE.  I  should  like  to  ask  the  Senator  one  further  ques 
tion,  which  I  believe  the  Senator  from  Mississippi  [Mr.  GEORGE] 
did  not  ask. 

Mr.  WHITE.     Certainly. 

Mr.  BATE.  Is  it  or  is  it  not  a  fact  that  all  the  boards  and 
commercial  organizations  in  the  city  of  Los  Angeles,  which  is  tribu 
tary  to  this  place,  have  decided  in  favor  of  San  Pedro? 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  principal  commercial  board  of  the  city  of 
Los  Angeles  is  the  Chamber  of  Commerce.  This  board  comprises 
within  its  membership  most  of  the  more  prominent  business  men  of 
that  citv.  In  1894  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  Los  Angeles  had  a 
meeting  and  determined  that  its  members  should  vote  upon  this  sub 
ject,  which  they  did,  deciding  by  a  large  majority  in  favor  of  San 
Pedro.  If  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  will  consult  page  80  of  the 
hearings  he  will  find  there  an  elaborate  dispatch  signed  by  men 
whom  I  consider  to  be  representative  business  men  of  the  city  of  Los 
Angeles,  also  in  favor  of  San  Pedro. 

Mr.  President,  I  dislike  to  go  on  further  with  this  subject  now. 
I  will  state  the  reason.  I  have  been  suffering  from  a  severe  cold 
for  three  or  four  days,  and  I  feel  the  effects  of  it  somewhat.  I  shall 
go  on  and  finish  in  the  morning.  I  should  prefer  to  proceed  now  if 
I  were  physically  able,  but  in  my  present  condition  I  do  not  like  to 
risk  going  on  further  tonight. 

Mr.  HARRIS.  In  view  of  the  suggestion  of  the  Senator  from 
California,  I  move  that  the  Senate  adjourn. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  (at  5  o'clock  and  n  minutes 
p.  m.)  the  Senate  adjourned  until  to-morr.ow,  Saturday,  May  9,  1896, 
at  12  o'clock  meridian. 

Saturday,  May  9,   1896. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  President,  I  will  resume  consideration  of 
my  objections  to  the  Santa  Monica  item  of  the  river  and  harbor  bill, 
and  will  now  proceed  to  consider  some  of  the  claims  made  by  the 
advocates  of  Santa  Monica  and  also  the  objections  raised  to  the  San 
Pedro  location,  although  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  a  correct  solution 
of  the  immediate  question  pending  that  any  elaborate  presentation 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  347 

of  the  particular  subjects  to  which  I  allude  shall  be  made,  because 
the  amendment  which  I  have  proffered  involves  the  appointing  of 
a  commission  to  locate  the  harbor,  and  provides  that  upon  a  favorable 
report  of  a  majority  of  the  commission  the  appropriation  shall  be 
made  available  for  the  point  selected  by  them.  The  merits  of  each 
site  would  thus  be  finally  and  satisfactorily  settled. 

I  believe  it  has  already  been  sufficiently  shown  and  that  it  must 
continue  to  be  apparent  that  there  is  at  least  reasonable  ground  to 
doubt  the  advisability  of  investing  more  than  three  millions  of  public 
funds  in  an  unapproved  breakwater  site,  and  I  trust  that  I  may  be 
able  to  show  to  the  Senate  that  it  is  improper  to  make  such  an  appro 
priation  as  is  designed  in  the  bill  without  any  governmental  sanction 
or  without  any  regard  to  those  safeguards  which  have  heretofore 
been  deemed  essential  to  secure  the  proper  disbursement  of  public 
money. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  I  do  not  deem  it  absolutely  mate 
rial  to  consider  objections  to  the  contending  locations,  I  will  do  so, 
as  some  may  be  influenced  by  the  many  charges  and  theories  from 
time  to  time  urged  in  this  connection.  In  the  views  of  the  minority, 
page  31,  occurs  the  following: 

It  is  asserted  that  since  the  last  report  of  the  engineers  was  made  Mr. 
Huntington  and  his  associates  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  have  con 
structed  an  extensive  wharf  at  Port  Los  Angeles  (Santa  Monica),  and  that 
the  shipping  experience  since  had  evidenced  the  wisdom  of  the  location.  It 
is  true  that  in  ordinary  weather  vessels  successfully  discharge  their  cargoes 
at  Mr.  Huntington's  wharf,  but  in  this  respect  San  Pedro  possesses  equal 
advantages.  The  evidence  taken  by  the  committee  shows  insurance  rates  to 
be  less  at  San  Pedro  than  at  Santa  Monica.  The  Mendell's  report  mentions 
that  San  Pedro  Bay  has  been  a  shipping  point  time  out  of  mind;  that  prior 
to  the  American  occupation  mariners  touched  there,  and  the  locality  was 
known  as  the  "  Embarcadero."  During  those  periods  no  one  thought  of 
resorting  to  Santa  Monica  Bay. 

In  the  letter  circulated  by  and  bearing  Mr.  Corthell's  name  I 
find  the  following  response  to  the  point  to  which  I  have  just  adverted: 

On  page  68  of  the  report  of  the  hearing  is  a  digest  of  certain  affidavits 
made  by  shipmasters  this  year,  who  have,  some  of  them,  for  two  or  three  years 
been  engaged  regularly  in  loading  and  unloading  vessels  at  Port  Los  Angeles, 
It  is  my  pronounced  opinion  that  had  the  commercial  experience  at  the  wharf 
at  Port  Los  Angeles  been  available  for  consideration  by  the  Mendell  board 
in  1891  it  would  not  have  hesitated  to  give  an  opinion  in  favor  of  building 
a  deep-sea  harbor  at  this  point  instead  of  at  San  Pedro.  It  is  well  known 
that  the  reason  why  "  San  Pedro  has  been  a  shipping  point  from  time  out 
of  mind "  is  the  existence  of  the  mouth  of  a  tidal  lagoon  at  this  place  into 
which  the  small  vessels  which  formerly  plied  along  this  coast  could  enter  and 
unload  upon  the  banks  or  wharves,  and  that  it  was  not  on  account  ofi  any 
anchorage  facilities  which  the  open  bay  might  possess. 

In  the  same  connection  Mr.  Corthell  refers  to  the  holding  ground 
at  San  Pedro  thus : 

The  contention  in  regard  to  holding  ground  at  San  Pedro  has  been,  and  is 
that  there  are  near  the  shore  and  in  some  other  parts  of  the  bay  rocky  areas 
which  do  not  form  good  holding  ground  for  vessels  at  anchor.  It  is  generally 
conceded  by  shipmasters,  and  it  certainly  is  evident  from  careful  examina 
tions  made  by  borings  and  by  experience  in  pile  driving  at  Port  Los  Angeles, 
that  that  part  at  least  of  the  Bay  of  Santa  Monica  could  not  have  better  hold 
ing  ground. 

Among  the  many  fallacious  impressions  which  obtain  in  some 
quarters,  and  perhaps  yet  prevail,  in  consequence  of  reiterated  asser- 


348  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

tion,  is  the  notion  that  the  holding  ground  at  San  Pedro  is  not  good. 
There  will  be  found  printed  in  the  hearings  before  the  Senate  com 
mittee  the  statement  of  some  forty-odd  shipmasters  who  have  visited 
San  Pedro  at  different  times,  and  their  evidence  upon  this  subject  is 
absolutely  conclusive.  Those  shipmasters  have  not  called  at  that 
port  during  one  or  two  years,  but  have  plied  up  and  down  the  coast 
of  California  for  extended  periods.  The  statements  to  which  I  refer 
are  on  page  24  of  the  hearings  and  extend  to  the  middle  of  page  28. 
The  original  affidavits  are  on  file  with  the  committee,  and  the  matter 
presented  in  the  report  is  in  digested  form.  I  quote: 

O.  A.  Olsen,  master  mariner:  Have  been  acquainted,  in  my  capacity  as 
practical  sailor,  with  San  Pedro  Bay  and  Harbor  nine  years.  Have  been  in 
San  Pedro  Bay  several  times,  and  have  anchored  in  roadstead.  Very  good 
holding  ground.  San  Pedro  has  the  better  anchorage  ground.  San  Pedro 
has  the  better  natural  protection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells. 

F.  G.  Miller,  master  mariner :  Have  been  acquainted  with  San  Pedro  Bay 
and  Harbor,  as  a  practical  sailor,  for  thirty  years.  Have  been  in  San  Pedro 
Bay  and  Harbor  six  times.  Always  anchored  in  roadstead.  Anchored  in 
winter  of  1860-61  and  since  to  date.  Good  holding  ground,  and  with  good 
ground  tackle  I  think  vessel  will  lay  safe  to  her  anchors  the  year  round. 

Here  is  the  case  of  a  man  who  has  been  engaged  in  managing 
vessels,  acting  as  master  mariner  on  the  Pacific  Coast  since  1861,  and 
he  has  frequently  visited  this  bay. 

H.  A.  Smith,  master  mariner :  Have  anchored  in  San  Pedro  Bay  many 
times  since  1888.  Good  holding  ground.  San  Pedro  best  place  for  harbor. 
Is  better  protected  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells  than  Santa  Monica  Bay. 

John  Peterson,  master  mariner:  Have  been  acquainted  with  San  Pedro 
Bay  and  Harbor  twenty  years,  and  have  been  there  many  times.  Anchored 
in  the  roadstead.  Very  good  anchorage  ground.  Have  been  acquainted  with 
Santa  Monica  Bay  twenty  years.  San  Pedro  has  better  anchorage  ground 
and  has  better  natural  protection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells. 

I  will  not  read  all  the  statements,  but  I  will  ask  to  have  same 
incorporated  in  my  remarks.  Senators  who  care  to  do  so  may 
peruse  these  statements  upon  pages  24,  25,  26,  27,  and  28  of  the  hear 
ings.  They  are  to  the  effect  that  the  natural  advantages  of  San 
Pedro  are  in  every  way  superior  to  Santa  Monica,  and  are  specific 
and  positive  as  to  the  character  of  the  holding  ground.  These  affi 
davits  are  made,  not  by  theorists,  but  by  men  who  have  cast  their 
anchors  in  that  roadstead  and  know  exactly  what  they  are  talking 
about.  Their  views  should  be  regarded  as  conclusive.  I  submit 
their  statements: 

Sivorn  statements  of  sea  captains  as  to  holding  ground  for  anchorage  at  San 

Pedro. 

W.  S.  Southard,  master  mariner:  Have  been  at  San  Pedro  Bay  and 
Harbor  once.  Anchored  in  the  roadstead.  First-class  holding  ground.  Have 
been  in  Bay  of  Santa  Monica,  near  Redondo.  San  Pedro  is  best  place  for 
harbor.  Is  protected  by  islands  on  one  side,  mainland  on  the  other.  Latter 
protects  westerly  winds,  which  prevail  at  different  times  of  the  year. 

F.  E.  Magune,  shipmaster:  Been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor  twelve  times. 
Anchored  in  roadstead.  The  holding  ground  is  good  and  very  hard.  San 
Pedro  has  better  protection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells. 

Barnard  Olsson,  master  mariner:  Anchored  many  times  in  San  Pedro 
Bay,  in  roadstead.  San  Pedro  best  holding  ground.  Have  always  tried  to 
keep  away  from  Santa  Monica  Bay.  The  better  anchorage  ground  is  at  San 
Pedro,  by  all  means.  San  Pedro  has  better  protection  from  prevailing  winds 
and  swells. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  349 

Henry  A.  Crocker,  master  mariner:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor 
many  times  —  too  numerous  to  mention.  Anchored  in  roadstead.  Very  good 
anchorage  ground  at  San  Pedro.  Have  been  in  Bay  of  Santa  iMonica.  San 
Pedro  has  better  anchorage  ground  and  has  better  protection  from  prevailing 
winds  and  swells. 

R.  Brummer,  master  mariner:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor  many 
times.  Anchored  in  roadstead.  The  holding  ground  is  exceptionally  good. 
Am  acquainted  with  Bay  of  Santa  Monica.  San  Pedro  has  better  anchorage 
ground  and  better  natural  protection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells. 

Charles  Warner,  master  mariner:  Have  been  in,  San  Pedro  Harbor 
many  times.  Anchored  in  roadstead.  Anchorage  ground  very  good.  Was  in 
Santa  Monica  Bay  with  cargo  of  piles  and  found  great  difficulty  in  discharg 
ing  and  holding  ground  very  poor.  San  Pedro  has  better  anchorage  ground 
and  better  protection  from  prevailing  winds,  etc. 

P.  A.  Johnson,  master  mariner:  Have  been  on  San  Pedro  route  six 
years  steady.  Have  anchored  in  roadstead  many  times.  Good  holding  ground. 
Don't  think  favorably  of  Santa  Monica.  San  Pedro  has  better  anchorage 
ground  and  is  better  protected  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells. 

C.  C.  Birkholm,  master  mariner:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  and  Har 
bor  twenty  times.  Anchored  in  roadstead.  Good  anchorage  ground.  Have 
discharged  two  cargoes  at  Santa  Monica.  San  Pedro  has  better  anchorage 
ground  and  better  protection  from  prevailing  winds. 

E.  Christ,    shipmaster:     Have    been    in    San    Pedro    Harbor    many    times. 
Always   anchored  my  vessel   outside.     Have  always   found  the  holding  bottom 
of   first-class   quality.     Do   not   think  there   is   any  better.     Never   had  occasion 
to   anchor    in    Santa    Monica    Bay.     San    Pedro    has    better    anchorage   ground, 
I   think.     San   Pedro  has  better  natural  protection   from  prevailing  winds  and 
swells. 

O.  Anderson,  master  mariner:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor  many 
times.  Anchored  in  roadstead  many  times.  Good  holding  ground.  Have  been 
acquainted  with  Santa  Monica  Bay  since  1881,  and  do  not  know  any  good 
of  it.  San  Pedro  has  better  anchorage  ground  and  better  protection  from 
prevailing  winds  and  swells. 

William  Robb,  master  mariner:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor  twenty 
times  or  more.  Anchored  in  roadstead.  Have  always  found  the  anchorage 
good ;  in  fact,  superior  to  any  bay  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  San  Francisco  exceptecl, 
and  only  except  San  Francisco  on  account  of  the  harbor  being  land-locked. 
Have  anchored  in  Santa  Monica  Bay  on  different  occasions  in  small  boats 
and  yachts.  San  Pedro  has  better  anchorage  ground  and  better  protection 
from  prevailing  winds  and  swells.  San  Pedro  is  sheltered  from  prevailing 
winds  on  the  Pacific  Coast. 

John  W.  Aspe,  master  mariner:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor  about 
thirty  times.  Anchored  in  roadstead  every  voyage.  Holding  ground  is  good. 
Am  acquainted  with  Santa  Monica  Bay.  San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground 
and  better  protected  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells.  San  Pedro  is  a  safe 
harbor  for  the  summer  winds,  with  good  holding  ground.  Santa  Monica 
has  a  constant  westerly  swell,  with  very  poor  holding  ground. 

M.  Olsen,  master  mariner:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  many  times. 
Often  anchored  in  roadstead.  Good  holding  ground.  San  Pedro  has  best 
anchorage  ground.  Acquainted  with  Santa  Monica  Bay  only  by  my  charts.  San 
Pedro  has  better  natural  protection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells. 

F.  D.   Wells,   master  mariner:     Have  been   in   San   Pedro   Harbor   several 
times.     Anchored    in    roadstead.     I    have    anchored    there    in    heavy    blows    and 
my    anchors    always    held.     San    Pedro    has    best    anchorage    ground.     Am    ac 
quainted   with    Santa    Monica    Bay.     San    Pedro    has    better   natural   protection 
from   prevailing   winds   and   swells. 

C.  Jansen,  master  mariner:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  many  times. 
Anchored  in  roadstead.  Good  holding  ground;  most  emphatically  good.  Am 
acquainted  with  Santa  Monica  Bay.  I  consider  San  Pedro  superior  in  all 
weather  from  the  fact  that  San  Pedro  is  protected  from  all  prevailing  winds 
and  'seas.  San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground,  and  is  recognized  by  all 
seafaring  men  as  a  safe  port  to  anchor  in. 

J.  W.  Grove,  shipmaster :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay.  Anchored  in 
roadstead.  Good  holding  ground.  Have  been  in  Santa  Monica  Bay  twice. 
San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground  and  better  natural  protection  from  pre 
vailing  winds  and  swells.  The  latter  place  is  protected  from  the  south  by 
Catalina  Island;  from  the  north  by  the  mainland. 


350  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

William  Kindlen,  master  mariner:  Have  anchored  in  San  Pedro  Harbor, 
in  roadstead.  San  Pedro  has  good  holding  ground  and  shelter.  Can  not 
compare  San  Pedro  with  Santa  Monica,  for  I  do  not  know;  but  San  Pedro  is 
good.  In  my  opinion  San  Pedro  has  better  protection  from  prevailing  winds 
and  swells. 

F.  M.  Johnson,  master  mariner:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor  many 
times.  Anchored  in  roadstead.  Good  holding  ground.  Am  acquainted  with 
Santa  Monica  Bay  from  my  charts.  San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground 
and  better  natural  protection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells. 

David  Robinson,  master  mariner :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor,  and 
anchored  in  roadstead.  I  think  the  bottom  is  very  good  holding  ground.  I 
have  never  dragged  my  anchor  there.  Am  not  acquainted  with  Bay  of  Santa 
Monica.  In  my  opinion  San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground  and  better  pro 
tection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells.  I  have  been  over  to  Santa  Monica, 
and  I  noticed  that  there  is  a  very  strong  undertow,  and  I  should  think  it 
would  be  very  hard  to  hold  a  ship  at  the  wharf.  As  to  anchorage,  I  know 
nothing,  only  from  hearsay. 

John  Slater,  master  mariner :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  and  Harbor 
many  times.  Anchorage  ground  good.  Am  -acquainted  with  Santa  Monica 
Bay  for  twenty  years,  and  I  at  all  times  wanted  to  keep  away  from  it.  San 
Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground,  and  has  better  protection  from  prevailing 
winds  and  swells. 

C.  Ryder,  shipmaster :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  and  Harbor  many 
times.  Anchored  in  roadstead  many  times.  Good  anchorage  ground.  As 
between  bays  of  Santa  Monica  and  San  Pedro  the  latter  has  best  anchorage 
ground  and  better  natural  protection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells. 

William  Rosendall,  master  mariner :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  and 
Harbor  many  times.  Anchored  in  roadstead  many  times.  Good  holding 
ground.  Acquainted  with  Santa  Monica  a  little  by  knowledge  acquired  from 
my  charts.  San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground  and  better  natural  pro 
tection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells.  San  Pedro  is  protected  from  all 
prevailing  winds  and  swells,  excepting  severe  winds  and  seas  from  the  south 
east;  these  the  bay  of  Santa  Monica  is  entirely  exposed  to. 

Martin  Chester,  shipmaster :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  and  Harbor 
between  three  and  four  hundred  trips  and  anchored  in  roadstead  many  times. 
Good  holding  ground.  Never  knew  of  a  vessel  meeting  with  any  accident 
on  account  of  poor  holding  ground.  I  was  master  of  the  first  vessel  that  tied 
up  alongside  the  old  Santa  Monica  wharf.  San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage 
ground  and  better  protection  from  prevailing  winds,  etc.  In  my  personal 
experience  as  master  of  different  vessels  bound  for  both  ports  I  found  that 
for  safety  and  shelter  San  Pedro  was  preferable  and  more  secure. 

Richard  Hillyer,  master  mariner :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor  and 
Bay  hundreds  of  times.  Anchored  in  roadstead.  I  have  found  anchorage 
good,  and  it  can  not  be  surpassed.  Have  been  acquainted  with  Santa  Monica 
Bay  for  many  years.  San  Pedro  has  better  anchorage  ground  under  all  cir 
cumstances  than  Santa  Monica,  and  has  better  natural  protection  from  pre 
vailing  winds  and  swells.  Santa  Monica  has  poor  holding  ground  and  but  little 
shelter.  I  dragged  my  anchors  in  Santa  Monica  Bay,  and  was  forced  to  go 
back  to  San  Pedro  Bay  for  protection. 

R.  P.  Rassmussen,  master:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  and  Harbor. 
Anchored  in  roadstead  twenty  times  or  more.  Have  found  the  anchorage 
good  for  almost  all  winds,  with  hard  blue  clay  for  bottom,  well  adapted  for 
holding  ground,  with  a  depth  of  water  of  from  5  to  15  fathoms.  Am  acquainted 
with  Bay  of  Santa  Monica  by  careful  study  of  charts.  In  my  opinion  San 
Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground  and  better  natural  protection  from  pre 
vailing  winds  and  swells.  San  Pedro  anchorage,  with  winds  from  due  west 
to  due  south,  is  perfectly  sheltered,  while  Santa  Monica  is  exposed  to  both 
winds  and  swells  between  said  points. 

E.  C.  Generaux,  master  mariner:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  about  ten 
trips.  Anchored  every  trip,  save  one,  in  roadstead.  Anchorage  ground  is 
excellent  holding  ground.  No  sudden  rise  and  fall  in  the  bottom  and  an 
average  depth  throughout  the  whole  ground.  Have  been  anchored  in  several 
gales  and  never  dragged.  Am  acquainted  with  Santa  Monica  Bay,  first  from 
observations  from  the  beach  and  how  vessels  anchored  in  the  bay  act,  and 
from  hearsay  from  shipmasters  that  have  been  there.  From  experience  I 
know  little  concerning  Santa  Monica  Bay,  but  I  can  plainly  see  that  there  is 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  351 

too  much  water  for  vessels  to  anchor  safely.  Very  heavy  undertow.  San 
Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground  by  far,  as  Santa  Monica  has  too  much 
water  and  not  an  even  bottom.  San  Pedro  Bay  has  better  protection  from 
prevailing  winds  and  swells,  as  it  is  only  open  to  southerly  and  westerly  winds. 
A  vessel  will  ride  a  gale  in  San  Pedro  better  than  Santa  Monica. 

Walter  H.  Mackie,  master  mariner :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay. 
Anchored  in  roadstead.  Good  holding  ground.  San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage, 
ground  and  better  protection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells  than  Santa 
Monica. 

A.  C.  Glaser,  master  mariner :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor  and  Bay 
several  times.  Anchored  in  roadstead.  Good  anchorage  ground  at  San 
Pedro.  Am  acquainted  with  Santa  Monica  Bay.  San  Pedro  has  best  anchor 
age  ground  and  better  natural  protection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells. 
San  Pedro  is  a  natural  harbor. 

Edward  Lewis,  shipmaster:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  about  ten 
trips.  Anchored  in  roadstead.  San  Pedro  is  the  very  best  holding  ground,  in 
my  opinion,  there  is  on  the  Pacific  Coast,  basing  my  opinion  from  the  fact 
of  having  discharged  full  cargoes  of  coal  in  the  outer  harbor.  San  Pedro 
has  better  protection  from  prevailing  winds  than  Santa  Monica.  The  prevailing 
winds  for  about  ten  months  in  the  year  come  from  the  westward,  and  a  ship 
at  anchor  in  San  Pedro  Bay,  being  protected  by  Point  Firmin,  is  safe  from 
the  wind  and  swells. 

J.  C.  Hansen,  master  mariner :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  and  Harbor 
many  times.  Have  anchored  in  roadstead  many  times  —  too  numerous  to 
mention.  Find  from  my  varied  experience  that  the  holding  ground  at  San 
Pedro  is  of  the  very  best.  In  1876  in  Santa  Monica  Bay  I  came  near  losing 
the  schooner  Hayes,  a  new  vessel.  Had  all  my  lines  out,  and  also  many  lines 
furnished  by  the  company,  and  barely  escaped  destruction.  San  Pedro  has 
best  anchorage  ground  and  better  natural  protection  from  prevailing  winds 
and  swells. 

A.  P.  Carlson,  master :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor  various  times  and 
anchored  in  roadstead.  Anchorage  ground  good.  San  Pedro  has  best  anchor 
age  ground  and  better  protection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells.  I  have 
been  in  Santa  Monica  and  rebuilt  the  wharf,  and  during  that  time  I  observed 
it  to  be  a  dangerous  bay  for  shipping.  Saw  the  seas  break  over  the  wharf 
at  times  while  a  personal  observer. 

J.  Wiley :  Have  anchored  in  roadstead,  San  Pedro  Bay,  ten  or  fifteen 
times  during  last  year.  First-class  holding  ground ;  sheltered  from  all  winds 
except  a  southeast  wind,  which  we  have  three  or  four  times  during  the  winter 
months.  They  last  only  short  time.  No  trouble  of  a  vessel  riding  if  their 
anchors  are  clear  and  have  out  good  scope.  Vessels  never  go  to  Santa  Monica 
unless  they  are  compelled  to.  San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground  and  bet 
ter  protection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells. 

O.  Anfindsen,  master  mariner:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  and  Harbor 
six  or  seven  times  each  year  during  all  seasons.  Anchored  in  roadstead  often. 
While  master  of  the  schooner  Bobolink,  in  1886,  anchored  there  about  once  a 
month.  Anchorage  ground  I  find  excellent,  with  good  shelter  from  north 
west  and  southwest  winds  and  from  south  and  southeast  winds.  It  is  in 
my  opinion,  better  than  any  harbor  south  of  San  Francisco,  barring  San 
Diego,  and  I  have  been  in  all  of  them.  Am  acquainted  with  Santa  Monica 
Bay  no  more  than  from  casual  runs  up  and  down  the  coast.  San  Pedro  has 
by  far  the  best  advantage.  Santa  Monica  is  an  open  ocean  and  no  shelter. 
San  Pedro  has  the  most  advantage  of  a  harbor  for  shipping,  it  being  inclosed 
by  land  in  a  half  circle,  whereas  Santa  Monica  is  exposed  to  all  quarters  of 
the  compass,  and  the  undertow  there  is  severe  on  the  ship's  ground  tackle, 
which  does  not  exist  in  the  outer  road  of  San  Pedro. 

George  Dettmer,  master  mariner :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  and  Har 
bor  many  times.  Anchored  in  roadstead  many  times.  Good  holding  ground. 
Have  been  many  times  in  Santa  Monica  Bay  and  its  locality.  San  Pedro  has 
best  anchorage  ground  and  has  better  natural  protection  from  prevailing 
winds  and  swells. 

E.  W.  Sprague,  master:  Have  been  running  to  San  Pedro  Harbor  off  and 
on  as  master  of  vessel  for  twelve  years.  Always  anchored  in  roadstead  every 
trip.  Have  found  it  first-class  holding  ground  and  have  never  known  a  ves 
sel  to  drag  anchor  there.  Am  acquainted  with  bay  of  Santa  Monica  to  my 
sorrow.  My  experience  is  a  heavy  westerly  swell  setting  in  the  year  round, 


352  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

and  westerly  wind  has  full  sway,  and  there  is  no  protection  from  them.  San 
Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground  and  better  protection  from  prevailing 
winds  and  swells.  Westerly  winds  are  the  prevailing  winds  and  always  a 
westerly  swell,  and  San  Pedro  has  a  protection  from  them  already,  and  Santa 
Monica  has  not,  and  in  my  opinion  it  never  can  have.  Can  easily  anchor  100 
ships  in  outer  bay  of  San  Pedro  in  a  westerly  gale  in  perfect  safety. 

O.  Peterson,  master  mariner :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor  about  one 
hundred  times.  Anchored  in  roadstead  many  times.  Good  holding  ground. 
Have  been  acquainted  with  Santa  Monica  Bay  since  1878.  San  Pedro  has  best 
anchorage  ground  and  better  protection  from  prevailing  winds  and  swells. 

F.  O.  Raven,  shipmaster:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Harbor  many  times. 
Anchored  in  roadstead.  Have  anchored  and  lain  in  all  kinds  of  weather  and 
never  dragged  my  anchors.  Have  been  acquainted  with  Santa  Monica  Bay 
for  eighteen  years.  San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage  and  better  protection  from 
prevailing  winds.  Have  lain  in  Santa  Monica  Bay  with  cargo  and  distributed 
my  cargo  with  great  difficulty. 

Alexander  Smith,  master  mariner  and  pilot:  Have  been  in  San  Pedro 
Bay  and  Harbor  about  five  hundred  times.  Anchored  in  roadstead  both  light 
and  deep  draft.  Anchorage  ground  is  very  good  and  will  hold  a  long  time  if 
your  anchors  are  clear.  Am  very  well  acquainted  with  Santa  Monica  Bay. 
San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground,  and  has  better  natural  protection  from 
prevailing  winds  and  swells  for  three  hundred  and  sixty  days  in  the  year. 
Santa  Monica  Bay  has  not  good  holding  ground  for  any  vessel's  anchors;  the 
bottom  is  too  hard  until  you  get  14  miles  to  the  southeast  of  the  new  Santa 
Monica  wharf.  San  Pedro  Bay  is  the  most  eligible  location  for  a  deep-water 
harbor  because  the  half  of  a  natural  harbor  is  there  already. 

Claus  C.  Hansen,  master :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  and  Harbor 
twenty  times  and  more  and  have  anchored  in  roadstead.  It  is  a  very  good 
holding  ground.  San  Pedro  has  best  natural  protection  from  prevailing  winds. 
It  is  a  better  protected  roadstead  from  westerly  winds,  which  are  most  pre 
vailing.  Catalina  Island  protects  some.  Do  not  see  any  protection  for  Santa 
Monica  Bay  from  any  islands. 

P.  Sonerud,  master  mariner :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  and  Harbor 
between  twenty  and  thirty  times  and  anchored  in  roadstead.  There  is  a  good 
holding  bottom,  and  I  think  a  vessel  can  lie  perfectly  safe  in  most  any  kind 
of  sweather.  Am  acquainted  with  Santa  Monica  by  study  of  chart  and  wind 
and  current  setting  into  that  place.  San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground, 
and  better  protection  from  prevailing  winds.  From  my  constant  trading  to 
San  Pedro  I  have  always  found  it  a  safe  place,  and  that  the  outside  harbor 
has  a  natural  protection  from  the  prevailing  winds  that  blow  there ;  and,  further 
more,  never  saw  any  swell  setting  in  to  interfere  with  discharging  of  deep- 
water  vessels  that  always  lay  in  the  harbor  discharging  freight. 

R.  Johannessen,  master  mariner :  Have  been  in  San  Pedro  Bay  and  Har 
bor  about  a  hundred  times.  Have  anchored  in  roadstead  many  times.  Anchor 
age  ground  there  is  excellent.  Am  acquainted  with  bay  of  Santa  Monica 
for  twenty-three  years.  San  Pedro  has  best  anchorage  ground,  and  better 
protection  from  prevailing  winds. 

Is  there  anything  in  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Corthell  and  others 
that  the  Mendell  board  were  ignorant  of  the  situation  and  would 
have  reached  a  different  conclusion  had  they  been  aware  that  a  wharf 
such  as  that  of  the  Southern  Pacific  could  be  erected  and  maintained 
at  Port  Los  Angeles?  There  is  nothing  anywhere  to  justify  the 
assertion. 

I  have  no  doubt  from  the  shipping  experience  at  San  Pedro  that 
it  would  be  possible  to  construct  and  operate  a  wharf  there  extend 
ing  into  the  roadstead.  The  constant  use  of  San  Pedro  Bay  for 
years  for  shipping  uses  demonstrates  this. 

It  is  conceded  that  Mr.  Huntington  has  built  a  magnificent  pier 
at  Port  Los  Angeles,  and  that  he  is  able  to  handle  shipping  and 
transact  business  there.  There  are  sometimes  difficulties  incident  to 
rough  water.  Trouble  of  that  kind  has  been  lately  experienced. 

It  has  been  said  that  there  never  has  been  an  accident  at  the  Santa 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  353 

Monica  wharf,  and  that  ships  have  been  wrecked  at  San  Pedro. 
San  Pedro  Harbor  has  been  utilized  for  commercial  purposes,  as  the 
evidence  before  us  shows,  from  time  out  of  mind.  No  doubt  in 
stormy  seasons  vessels  can  not  at  all  hours  lie  there  in  safety,  and 
there  is  evidence  that  there  have  been  wrecks  within  that  harbor.  It 
is  admitted  that  certain  vessels  have  drifted  ashore  at  San  Pedro. 
But  during  the  time  that  Mr.  Huntington's  wharf  has  been  in  opera 
tion  at  Santa  Monica  there  have  been  no  disasters  at  San  Pedro  — 
none  whatever.  It  so  happens  there  have  been  no  very  serious  storms 
since  that  structure  has  been  called  into  existence,  and  consequently 
no  losses  at  either  place.  When  the  Mendell  Board  examined  this 
subject  they  did  not  content  themselves  with  equivocal  language,  but 
they  announced  their  conclusions  (page  9  of  the  Mendell  report) 
thus: 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  San  Pedro  Bay  in  its  natural  condition  affords  bet 
ter  protection  both  from  prevailing  winds  and  from  dangerous  storms  than 
Santa  Monica  Bay;  that  protection  can  be  secured  at  less  cost  for  equal  devel 
opment  of  breakwater  at  the  former  than  at  the  latter;  that  a  larger  area  of 
protected  anchorage  from  the  prevailing  westerly  swells  can  be  secured,  the 
severe  storms  from  the  southeast  being  infrequent,  and  that  there  is  already 
an  interior  harbor  that  will  be  a  valuable  addition  to  the  outer  harbor,  the 
Board  considers  San  Pedro  Bay  as  the  better  location  for  the  deep-water 
harbor  provided  for  by  the  act. 

It  was  never  supposed  by  Colonel  Mendell  or  anybody  else  that 
a  wharf  would  not  stand  during  ordinary  weather  at  the  place 
pointed  out  by  Mr.  Huntington  and  selected  by  him.  No  one  has 
ever  argued  that  the  storms  upon  the  Southern  California  coast  are 
severe  enough  to  destroy  a  well-built  pier,  unless  in  exceptional 
cases. 

It  is  evident  from  an  inspection  of  the  coast  of  Santa  Monica 
Bay,  where  the  railroad  wharf  is  located,  the  westerly  swells,  admitted 
to  be  common  and  severe,  must  directly  affect  Santa  Monica  Bay. 
There  is  nothing  to  prevent  such  a  swell  disturbing  the  sea  behind 
the  breakwater  proposed  by  the  majority.  The  southwesterly  swells 
and  the  westerly  swells  are  those  which  mariners  fear.  It  is  shown 
by  conclusive  proof  that,  while  the  wind  sometimes  blows  from  the 
southeast,  the  swell  never  proceeds  from  that  direction.  The  San 
Pedro  breakwater  is  so  designed  as  to  completely  intercept  westerly 
and  southwesterly  swells.  The  breakwater  will  cut  off  the  swell 
completely,  and  it  is  therefore  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  there 
is  or  is  not  deep  water  west  of  Point  Firmin. 

In  the  immediate  neighborhood  of  the  breakwater  at  San  Pedro 
the  water  is  not  extremely  deep ;  the  bottom  recedes,  proceeding 
westerly,  with  considerable  rapidity;  but  Mr.  Corthell's  diagram  por 
traying  the  suddenness  of  the  deepening  near  Point  Firmin  is  not 
fair.  No  doubt  deep  water  can  be  found  by  proceeding  westerly 
from  the  point.  But  if  Mr.  Corthell  will  make  his  soundings  south 
easterly  or  southerly  or  toward  Catalina  Island  he  will  find  a  gentle 
slope  and  better  water  than  exists  near  Port  Los  Angeles. 

Such  a  diagram  can  be  made  to  show  almost  anything,  depend 
ing  upon  the  direction  selected. 

I  have  referred  several  times  to  the  deep-sea  matter  and  have, 
perhaps,  given  more  attention  to  the  point  than  it  deserves ;  but  I 
wish  to  quote  briefly  from  the  report  of  the  Craighill  board,  showing 


354  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE, 

that  those  gentlemen  took  the  subject  into  consideration  and  exam 
ined  it  with  care.  I  read  from  page  6  of  the  Craighill  report,  as  fol 
lows  : 

HYDROGRAPHY. 

Throughout    Santa    Monica    Bay    the    depth    is    very    irregular  — 
That  statement  is  fully  justified  by  the  charts  — 

Abreast  of  Santa  Monica  village  there  is  a  depth  of  40  fathoms  4  miles 
off-shore,  but  off  the  beach,  south  of  La  Ballona,  a  submarine  plateau  4  miles 
wide  extends  for  8  miles  to  the  southwest,  with  depths  very  uniformly  increas 
ing  to  40  fathoms,  the  bottom  being  gray  sand,  mud,  and  gravel  — 

This  plateau  is  towards  San  Pedro  from  Santa  Monica  and  is 
not  necessarily  involved  here  — 

Westward  of  this  plateau,  toward  Point  Dume,  the  depth  increases  rap 
idly  to  nearly  300  fathoms,  carrying  200  fathoms  within  a  mile  south  of  the 
point,  and  the  bottom  is  muddy.  On  the  east  of  this  plateau,  toward  Point 
Vincente,  there  is  a  remarkable  submarine  valley  only  i  mile  wide  between 
the  loo-fathom  curves,  carrying  from  280  to  100  fathoms  to  within  I  and  li 
miles  to  the  beach,  with  a  muddy  bottom.  The  eastern  side  of  this  valley  is 
very  steep,  dropping  from  40  to  200  fathoms  in  three-eighths  of  a  mile.  The 
western  side  is  more  sloping,  but  the  slope  from  100  fathoms  is  very  sharp, 
It  has  been  named  by  Professor  Davidson  the  Vincente  Submarine  Valley. 
Near  the  southern  end  of  the  bay  a  well-marked  current  running  to  the  north 
ward  and  westward  has  been  observed. 

I  refer  to  this  description  to  prove  that  the  Bay  of  Santa  Monica 
throughout  —  not  merely  in  one  particular^  point,  but  throughout  — 
is    irregular,    and   that   the   uniform   grade   or   slope    is    largely   the 
offspring  of   Mr.   Corthell's   poetic   fancy.     The   report   further  pro 
ceeds  : 

The  line  of  10  fathoms,  which  may  be  considered  the  practical  outer  limit 
for  breakwater  construction,  and  the  line  of  5  fathoms,  which  is  the  inner 
limit  of  the  deep-water  anchorage,  for  both  Santa  Monica  and  San  Pedro 
bays,  are  shown  on  the  map  accompanying  this  report. 

And  an  inspection  of  the  Coast  Survey  maps  will  fully  sustain 
everything  I  have  said  upon  this  proposition. 
In  the  minority  report  it  is  said : 

It  is  claimed  that  the  proposed  breakwater  at  San  Pedro  it  not  protected 
from  southeast  gales ;  that  therefore  that  locality  is  not  desirable  for  harbor 
purposes,  and  that  the  land  projection  which  culminates  in  Point  Firmin 
shelters  Santa  M'onica  Bay  from  these  winds.  This  subject  has  been  care 
fully  considered  in  the  reports  already  noted,  and  the  conclusion  there  reached 
by  the  gentlemen  who  examined  into  the  matter  was  that  no  danger  is  to  be 
anticipated  from  the  'southeast  gales.  It  may  be  remarked  in  this  connection 
that  the  inner  harbor  at  San  Pedro,  which  it  is  conceded  is  perfectly  sheltered 
and  upon  the  surface  of  which  scarcely  a  ripple  is  ever  observed,  is  largely 
exposed  to  the  so-called  dangerous  southeast  gales,  and  yet  the  shipping 
within  that  inner  harbor  has  never  been  disturbed  thereby.  Manifestly,  no 
breakwater  can  ever  protect  any  harbor  from  wind;  the  essential  feature  in 
such  cases  is  the  guarding  against  ocean  swells.  The  difficulty  in  this  respect 
proceeds  from  the  west,  and  the  proposed  breakwater  at  San  Pedro  will 
afford  complete  protection  from  this  peril.  A  vessel  lying  within  the  pro 
posed  San  Pedro  Harbor  with  sails  unfurled  might  be  disturbed  by  southeast 
winds,  but  naked  masts  could  never  present  sufficient  surface  for  the  serious 
operation  of  any  wind  likely  to  visit  that  coast. 

In  his  letter  heretofore  mentioned  Mr.  Corthell  says: 

The  objection  stated  by  me  and  others  upon  this  point  is  that  the  harbor, 
not  the  breakwater,  is  unprotected  from  'southeast  gales,  and  that  the  entrance 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  355 

to  Wilmington  Harbor  is  entirely  unprotected  from  these  gales  by  the  break 
water  as  designed,  and  an  examination  of  the  charts  of  the  harbor  and  of  the 
plan  will  evidence  this  to  anyone. 

In  the  report  of  the  Craighill  commission  (H.  R.  Ex.  Doc.  41, 
Fifty-second  Congress,  second  session)  we  have  a  map,  the  second 
in  that  publication,  from  which  it  appears  that  the  proposed  break 
water  at  San  Pedro  protects  an  extended  area,  including  the  seven- 
fathom  curve,  from  winter  storms  and  from  the  western  swells. 

The  subject  of  harbor  protection  is  treated  of  in  that  report  and 
the  conclusion  reached  that  the  smooth  surface  at  San  Pedro  is  much 
more  than  that  at  Santa  Monica.  I  call  attention  specifically  to  this 
matter,  and  invite  study  of  the  contrasts. 

For   the   purpose   of   comparison  — 
Says  Craighill,  page  17 — 

the  anchorage  areas  for  the  Santa  Monica  harbors  are  assumed  to  be  the 
areas  included  within  the  breakwaters,  the  lines  drawn  through  their  ends 
normal  to  the  shore,  and  the  6- foot  contour;  and  for  the  San  Pedro  Harbor 
the  area  included  between  the  breakwater,  the  line  drawn  from  the  end  of 
the  breakwater  to  D-eadman's  Island,  and  the  6-foot  'contour.  The  deep-water 
anchorage  is  assumed  to  be  the  area  over  which  there  is  a  depth  of  at  least 
30  feet;  the  remaining  area  will  be  referred  to  as  the  inner  anchorage. 

I  will  ask  the  Secretary  to  read,  beginning  with  the  last  para 
graph  on  page  17,  down  to  the  end  of  page  18  of  the  pamphlet  which 
I  send  to  the  desk. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER  (Mr.  HILL  in  the  chair).  With 
out  objection,  the  Secretary  will  read  as  requested. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

ADVANTAGES     FOR     SHELTER     AND     FOR     HANDLING     FREIGHT. 

For  the  purposes  of  comparison,  the  anchorage  areas  for  the  Santa  Monica 
harbors  are  assumed  to  be  the  areas  included  within  the  breakwaters,  the 
lines  drawn  through  their  ends  normal  to  the  shore,  and  the  6- foot  contour; 
and  for  the  San  Pedro  Harbor  the  area  included  between  the  breakwater, 
the  line  drawn  from  the  end  of  the  breakwater  to  Deadmans  Island,  and  the 
6-foot  contour.  The  deep-water  anchorage  is  assumed  to  be  the  area  over 
which  there  is  a  depth  of  at  least  30 'feet;  the  remaining  area  will  be  referred 
to  as  the  inner  anchorage. 

The  total  anchorage  area  at  the  San  Pedro  Harbor  is  1,187  acres.  This 
includes  the  area  in  Wilmington  Harbor.  The  deep-water  area  is  339  acres 
and  the  inner  anchorage  846  acres.  The  harbor  at  Santa  Monica  village  has 
a  total  anchorage  area  of  1,078  acres.  The  deep-water  area  is  602  acres 
and  the  inner  anchorage  476  acres.  The  harbor  above  Santa  Monica  Canyon 
has  a  total  anchorage  area  of  994  acres.  The  deep-water  area  is  479  acres  and 
the  inner  anchorage  515  acres.  In  the  Santa  Monica  harbors  the  inner  anchor 
age  will  be  very  much  diminished  by  the  wharves,  which  must  extend  com 
pletely  across  it  to  reach  deep  water.  This  is  not  the  case  to  the  same  extent 
in  the  San  Pedro  Harbor. 

To  compare  the  exposures,  it  is  assumed  that  so  much  of  the  anchorage 
area  as  lies  north  of  southeast  and  southwest  lines  drawn  through  the  ends 
of  the  breakwaters  is  not  fully  covered  from  the  heavy  swells.  The  harbor 
at  San  Pedro  has  a  protected  area  of  852  acres  and  an  unprotected  area  of 
335  acres.  The  harbor  at  Santa  Monica  village  has  a  protected  area  of  209 
acres  and  an  unprotected  area  of  869  acres.  The  harbor  above  Santa  Monica 
Canyon  has  a  protected  area  of  221  acres  and  an  unprotected  area  of  773  acres. 

The  harbor  above  Santa  MJonica  Canyon,  within  the  anchorage  limits 
assumed,  has  a  land  frontage  8,000  feet  in  length  available  for  the  construction 
of  wharves.  The  harbor  at  Santa  Monica  village  has  a  similar  land  frontage 
8,000  feet  in  length.  In  the  harbor  first  mentioned,  however,  the  land  approach 


356  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

to  the  wharves  is  narrow  and  not  capable  of  extension  except  at  great  expense, 
and  there  is  no  available  place  for  the  construction  of  interior  basins.  The 
conformation  of  the  ground  is  such  that  free  access  to  the  landing  facilities  of 
the  harbor  would  not  be  easily  attainable  by  all  parties  engaged  in  the  business 
of  land  transportation. 

At  Santa  Monica  village,  on  the  other  hand,  the  approaches  from  the  land 
are  more  open,  and  at  La  Ballona  an  interior  basin  could  be  readily  formed. 
At  San  Pedro  there  is  a  land  frontage  of  4,300  feet  in  the  outer  harbor  with 
out  including  the  inner  line  of  the  breakwater.  Since  the  breakwater  is  con 
nected  with  the  shore,  a  railway  can  be  constructed  along  it,  and  wharves 
can  be  readily  projected  from  its  inner  face.  This  advantage  would  be  sac 
rificed  if  a  western  entrance  were  established.  This  gives  for  the  outer  har 
bor  an  additional  frontage  of  8,000  feet  and  a  total  frontage  of  12,300  feet. 
The  frontage  of  the  inner  harbor  is  about  4  miles  long.  The  total  frontage 
for  the  whole  harbor  is  therefore  33,420  feet,  or  about  65  miles.  The  approaches 
are  good,  as  they  include  both  sides  of  the  harbor,  and  Wilmington  harbor 
forms  a  magnificent  interior  basin. 

In  every  harbor  a  portion  of  the  area  must  be  more  or  less  exposed,  owing 
to  the  necessity  of  providing  convenient  communication  with  the  sea.  In  a 
port  of  commerce  it  is  of  great  importance  that  the  harbor  should  be  so 
located  and  designed  that  the  landing  facilities  should  be  established  in  the 
most  sheltered  part.  In  the  Santa  Monica  harbors  this  imperative  condition 
is  entirely  neglected,  the  landing  facilities  being  necessarily  situated  entirely 
within  the  exposed  area.  As  a  consequence  of  this  the  wharves  will  not  be 
well  protected  during  storms,  and  small  vessels  will  crowd  the  quiet  spaces 
of  the  deep-water  anchorage.  At  the  San  Pedro  Harbor  the  landing  facilities 
are  situated  within  the  unexposed  area,  and  small  vessels  will  find  their  best 
shelter  in  bad  weather  within  the  inner  harbor. 

The  deep-water  anchorage  area  is  amply  sufficient  in  all  the  harbors  and 
can  in  all  be  readily  extended  in  the  future.  In  the  San  Pedro  Harbor  the 
landing  facilities  can  be  greatly  extended  within  the  inner  harbor  without 
any  addition  to  the  outer  breakwater.  This  is  not  the  case  in  the  Santa 
Monica  harbors. 

In  all  the  harbors  the  holding  ground  is  good.  Some  doubts  have  been 
expressed  with  regard  to  the  character  of  the  holding  ground  at  San  Pedro, 
but  after  diligent  inquiry  the  board  is  satisfied  that  it  is  as  good  in  this  loca 
tion  as  in  the  others. 

Mr.  WHITE.  The  Senate  will  observe,  therefore,  that  the 
Craighill  board,  perhaps  to  a  greater  extent  and  more  carefully  than 
that  presided  over  by  Colonel  Mendell,  took  into  consideration  the 
relative  value  of  the  protection  afforded  by  each  plan  of  harbor  con 
struction,  and  concluded,  in  direct  antagonism  to  the  opinions  of  the 
Southern  Pacific  engineers,  that  the  San  Pedro  project  would  afford 
more  extended  safe  anchorage  facilities. 

It  is  said,  and  this  is  one  of  the  favorite  arguments  of  the  major 
ity  of  the  committee,  that  running  a  line  directly  from  Point  Vincente 
to  Point  Dume  there  will  be  a  water  inclosure  extending-  landward 
from  the  center  of  such  line  12  miles,  whereas  San  Pedro  Bay,  accord 
ing  to  Mr.  Corthell's  first  statement  before  the  Commerce  Committee, 
in  1894,  when  similarly  examined,  manifests  only  65/2  miles.  This 
may  reasonably  be  said  to  be  an  advantage,  as  far  as  it  goes,  favoring 
Santa  Monica.  But  this  circumstance  was  considered  by  the  boards 
mentioned,  and  was  not  deemed  vital  or  controlling. 

You  will  observe  upon  the  photograph  of  the  Santa  Monica 
shore,  which  is  upon  the  blackboard,  the  real  character  of  that  so- 
called  bay.  It  is  nothing  but  an  open  roadstead;  there  is  a  1 2-mile 
indentation,  and  it  must  be  between  30  and  40  miles  from  Vincente 
to  Dume,  and  looking  from  the  shore  out  to  the  ocean  the  exposure 
is  absolute ;  the  waves  roll  in,  as  appearing  upon  the  photograph, 
comparatively  uninterrupted.  There  is  but  slight  evidence  of  an 
actual  bay  in  this  case. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  357 

The  wharf  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company,  around  which  we 
are  asked  to  place  this  government  protection,  is  located  in  Santa 
Monica  Bay,  as  shown  on  the  photograph,  and  northerly  and  west 
erly  of  the  town  of  Santa  Monica.  In  my  judgment  the  Mendell 
board  was  correct  in  saying  that  the  very  best  site  to  be  found  in 
Santa  Monica  Bay  was  nearly  opposite  the  town  of  that  name.  There 
the  bluff  is  not  remarkable.  It  recedes  as  we  go  east  and  south,  until 
at  South  Santa  Monica  there  is  no  precipice  and  the  favorable  condi 
tions  spoken  of  by  Colonel  Mendell  can  there  be  found.  If  we  are 
to  have  a  harbor  in  Santa  Monica  Bay  this  is  the  proper  location. 
But  such  a  work  would  be  most  accessible.  The  proprietors  of  the 
wharf  which  we  are  about,  to  protect  preferred  a  different  spot,  less 
open  to  intrusion  and  not  as  readily  subject  to  competition. 

In  the  testimony  taken  before  the  Commerce  Committee  it  is 
said  that  there  is  ample  room  along  the  shore  of  the  ocean  from 
Santa  Monica  to  the  wharf  for  ten  or  twelve  railroad  tracks.  The 
Santa  Monica  shore  from  the  wharf  to  the  town  is  an  ordinary  sea- 
beach.  The  waves  roll  over  it  not  tempestuously,  but  in  a  manner 
usual  on  the  Southern  California  coast.  Thousands  from  the  city  of 
Los  Angeles  visit  this  region  for  the  purpose  of  seaside  bathing. 
Santa  Monica  itself  —  a  very  delightful  town  and  growing  in  seaside 
importance  —  is  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  most  favored  bath 
ing  spot.  There  are  extensive  and  finely  constructed  bath  houses, 
occupied  and  used  in  the  summer,  indeed,  to  some  extent  throughout 
the  whole  year,  but  principally  in  the  summer,  by  anxious  crowds 
coming  from  the  city  of  Los  Angeles  and  the  interior.  These  people 
resort  to  the  sea  for  objects  of  health  and  diversion.  The  presence 
of  one  railroad  track  within  the  municipality  of  Santa  Monica  and 
upon  the  seabeach  is  a  positive  disadvantage.  Any  person  walking 
along  the  bluff,  at  the  foot  of  which  the  railroad  runs,  while  a  loco 
motive  is  passing,  will  find  the  cinders  excessively  disagreeable ;  and 
while  there  is  yet  sufficient  space  between  the  bluff  and  the  shore  to 
enable  the  ordinary  pursuits  of  pleasure  which  accompany  diversions 
at  the  seaside,  yet  if  there  are  to  be  additional  tracks  laid  along  that 
shore,  if  railroad  freight  and  passenger  traffic  is  to  be  carried  on  there 
by  several  railroads,  the  locality  will  cease  to  be  available  for  present 
uses. 

The  question  as  to  how  many  tracks  may  be  placed  along  that 
shore  is  a  matter  entirely  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  board  of  trus 
tees.  No  condemnation  proceedings  can  procure  a  right  of  way 
along  the  ocean  within  the  town  limits  until  after  an  affirmative  vote 
of  the  board  of  trustees.  I  assume  that  that  board  will  properly 
discharge  its  duties  and  will  not  permit  the  extension  of  that  which  is 
already  a  nuisance. 

But  it  is  contended  that  the  proposed  harbor  can  be  reached  by 
means  of  Santa  Monica  Canyon.  It  is  possible,  and  I  think  practi 
cable,  to  obtain  a  grade  through  the  Santa  Monica  Canyon.  But 
the  route  is  circuitous,  and  a  road  thus  built  would  be  longer  than 
that  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Company.  But  when  the  shore  is 
reached  the  expense  will  have  but  begun. 

If  we  assume  that  the  breakwater  designed  by  the  Southern 
Pacific  engineers  would  be  sufficient  and  adequate  to  protect  an  area 
great  enough  to  permit  the  erection  of  two  or  three  large  wharves  as 
proposed,  nevertheless  the  expense  is  almost  prohibitory.  It  will  cost 


358  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

at  least  three-quarters  of  a  million  dollars,  and  probably  more,  to  build 
a  wharf,  to  say  nothing  of  the  right  of  way  and  other  difficulties  of 
access.  Now,  it  is  proposed  in  this  bill  that  the  Southern  Pacific 
Company  shall  give  the  use  of  their  tracks  upon  this  wharf  to  any 
railway  that  will  pay  a  sufficient  pro  rata  proportion  of  the  cost  thereof, 
to  be  fixed  by  the  Secretary  of  War.  There  is  now  but  one  track  and 
one  wharf.  If  the  business  grows  to  the  magnitude  expected,  these 
will  never  suffice.  If  it  does  not  grow  to  that  magnitude,  then  there  is 
no  justification  at  all  for  the  proposed  expenditure.  Mr.  Huntington 
will  not  make  any  foolish  trades.  His  road  will  have  an  advantage  at 
Port  Los  Angeles  that  no  other  road  can  enjoy. 

At  San  Pedro,  as  shown  in  the  report  of  the  engineers,  not  only 
is  the  Southern  Pacific  already  on  the  water  front,  but  there  is  also  a 
competing  railroad  upon  the  other  side  of  the  inner  harbor,  and  while 
the  latter  would  not  be  directly  connected  with  the  outer  harbor,  still 
the  proximity  is  such  that  there  could  be  no  difficulty  in  the  transfer 
ence  of  shipping  from  one  point  to  the  other,  especially  if  the  inner 
harbor  be  deepened  under  the  Benyaurd  project. 

It  is  said  that  the  bluff  near  San  Pedro,  some  60  feet  in  height, 
presents  insuperable  obstacles  to  reaching  the  shore.  I  do  not  think 
it  will  be  necessary  for  the  purposes  of  commerce  for  years  to  come  to 
build  piers  in  any  outer  harbor  on  our  coast.  The  inner  anchorage 
will  suffice;  but,  assuming  that  the  demands  of  trade  require  such 
harbor  to  be  reached  from  shore,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  making  a 
grade,  as  the  Southern  Pacific  did  to  the  wharf  which  it  commenced  to 
build  and  afterwards  abandoned  at  San  Pedro,  and  thus  reaching  the 
shore.  Colonel  Craighill  says  in  his  report,  and  all  of  his  colleagues 
agree  with  him,  that  the  breakwater  itself  could  be  utilized  for  railroad 
tracks,  thus  using  the  interior  of  the  bay  right  along  the  line  of  the 
breakwater  for  slips.  This,  Mr.  Corthell  says,  is  impossible.  He  takes 
Issue  with  the  engineers  upon  this  proposition.  I  will  quote  his  lan 
guage.  He  says : 

Considering  the  location  of  this  proposed  breakwater  —  immediately  under 
a  verticle  bluff,  in  the  open  ocean  —  and  the  impracticability,  as  shown  by  the 
physical  facts,  of  building  a  railroad  track  under  the  bluff  in  the  protected 
harbor,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  top  of  this  dike  could  be  made  accessible 
to  railroads,  and  I  think  I  am  safe  in  saying  that  on  a  dike  10  feet  above  the 
surface  of  the  water,  or  even  20  feet  above  the  surface  of  the  water,  in  such 
an  exposed  location  a  railroad  could  not  be  operated,  or  even  maintained 
upon  it,  on  account  of  the  waves  during  heavy  storms,  at  least,  coming  over 
the  top  of  the  breakwater,  not  only  making  the  track  unavailable,  but  also 
throwing  masses  of  water  upon  the  wharves  placed  under  it.  I  have  made 
no  estimates  of  the  cost  of  a  breakwater  at  this  place  that  would  admit  of  the 
operation  of  a  track  upon  it  and  of  wharves  behind  it,  but  I  should  think  it 
would  cost  twice,  perhaps  three  times,  as  much  as  the  breakwater  shown  on 
the  plans  of  the  Government  engineers. 

The  Craighill  board  is  positively  to  the  contrary. 
Since  the  breakwater  — 
They  say — 

is  connected  with  the  shore,  a  railway  can  be  constructed  along  it,  and 
wharves  can  be  readily  projected  from  its  inner  face.  This  advantage  would 
be  sacrificed  if  a  western  entrance  were  established. 

At  the  hearings  Colonel  Hains,  who  was  a  member  of  the  board, 
gave  an  opinion  of  a  similar  character.  He  says : 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  359 

There  is  another  thing  in  regard  to  the  continuing  breakwater.  The  first 
board  recommended  two  breakwaters,  with  a  gap.  I  do  not  think  that  there 
is  any  trouble  about  the  filling  in  with  sand,  which  some  people  apprehend, 
from  the  deposits  along  the  shore.  If  the  breakwater  is  continuous  with  the 
shore,  it  enables  a  protected  area  on  the  inside  of  this  breakwater  to  be  used 
for  docks  and  that  sort  of  thing.  Often  the  inside  breakwaters  are  used  for 
docks  and  landings. 

The  breakwater  at  San  Pedro  can  be  approached  by  a  cut.  It  is 
true  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  claims  to  own  land  there.  A  con 
siderable  part  of  the  property  on  the  San  Pedro  bluff  is  controlled  by 
that  company ;  not  all  of  it,  however.  The  Government  owns  a  reser 
vation  there,  and  private  parties  have  holdings.  However,  condemna 
tion  proceedings  properly  conducted  will  remedy  this  trouble.  The 
building  of  a  track  upon  the  breakwater  will  depend  upon  the  demands 
of  business.  If  the  exigencies  of  the  case  warranted,  a  track  would  be 
laid  upon  the  dike,  and  would  afford  superior  facilities  for  harbor 
access.  It  hence  appears  that  there  is  an  available  method  of  reaching 
an  outer  harbor  at  San  Pedro  preferable  to  anything  at  Santa  Monica. 
Of  course,  at  San  Pedro  wharves  might  be  built  into  the  sea,  but  such 
a  programme  would  be  attended  with  the  expense  of  which  I  complain. 
For  years  to  come  there  will  be  ample  room  in  the  inner  harbor,  when 
improved,  for  our  commerce ;  and  the  San  Pedro  deep-sea  area  will 
accommodate  vessels  at  anchor  awaiting  an  opportunity  to  discharge. 
Mr.  President,  there  is  another  criticism  to  which  I  deem  it  wise 
to  reply.  I  refer  to  Mr.  Corthell's  theory  of  the  littoral  current  which 
moves  sand  in  a  northerly  direction  along  the  coast.  He  avers  that 
the  effect  of  the  breakwater,  constructed  as  proposed  by  the  Craighill 
board,  would  be  to  detain  a  large  amount  of  these  sands  near  the  shore 
and  gradually  destroy  the  harbor,  or  make  it  necessary  to  dredge  exten 
sively.  Perhaps  some  little  accumulation  might  occur.  If  so,  it  could 
be  readily  removed.  Nowadays  a  reasonable  amount  of  harbor  dredg 
ing  is  an  attendant  upon  nearly  all  public  work  of  this  character.  One 
of  the  few  exceptions  is  afforded  by  the  Wilmington  inner  harbor, 
which  has,  ever  since  governmental  improvement,  always  kept 
itself  clear.  But  both  Major  Raymond  and  Colonel  Hains  are 
positive  that  no  danger  is  to  be  apprehended  from  any  sand  deposit. 
Tney  have  studied  the  question  carefully ;  it  is  considered  in  the  reports 
from  which  I  have  quoted.  All  the  Government  experts  rest  their 
reputations  as  experts  upon  the  proposition  that  no  serious  harm  will 
accrue.  Mr.  Corthell,  in  the  communication  with  which  he  has  hon 
ored  me — though  delivery  of  the  same  was  omitted — informs  us  that 
there  are  known  instances  of  moving  sands  impelled  by  littoral  cur 
rents  upon  the  Pacific  Coast.  He  tells  me  that  I  am  acquainted  with  the 
condition  of  affairs  at  San  Diego  Bay,  and  that  I  must  be  aware  that 
at  the  point  where  a  jetty  is  now  under  process  of  construction  at  the 
entrance  to  that  bay  sand  accumulates. 

This  statement  is  true,  but  the  movement  of  sand  particles  there  is 
manifestly  attributable  to  the  rush  of  water  into  the  bay  caused  by  the 
tidal  rise.  The  torrent  flowing  with  wonderful  power  in  or  out  of  the 
narrow  harbor  entrance  is  a  sight  worth  witnessing.  This  naturally 
disturbs  the  sand  and  the  inward  current  tends  to  accumulate  the 
material  below  the  jetty  rapidly  and  obviously.  I  attracted  the  atten 
tion  of  Mr.  Corthell  to  the  fact  that  a  ship  laden  with  coal  some  years 
ago  was  wrecked  at  San  Pedro ;  and  that  a  large  quantity  of  the  coal 
was  picked  up  afterwards  south  of  that  point,  at  the  town  of  Long 


360  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Beach.  I  asked  him  how  he  accounted  for  that  consistently  with  his 
theory.  He  gave  the  explanation  which  I  shall  read,  which,  I  must 
confess,  does  not  seem  to  me  to  be  entirely  conclusive.  The  following 
is  the  statement: 

Senator  WHITE,  of  California.  Before  you  reach  that,  I  want  to  say  a 
word.  I  remember  the  circumstance  of  a  vessel  loaded  with  coal  being 
wrecked  in  the  neighborhood  of  San  Pedro  and  sinking  there,  and  a  good  deal 
of  that  coal  was  picked  up  on  Long  Beach.  Long  Beach  is  located  southerly 
from  San  Pedro? 

Mr.  CORTHELL.     Yes. 

Senator  WHITE,  of  California.  If  the  shore  currents  are  northerly,  how  do 
you  account  for  the  coal  being  carried  to  Long  Beach? 

Mr.  CGRTHELL.  I  had  a  memorandum  made  to  explain  that.  That  fact  was 
called  to  my  attention,  and  I  will  give  you  the  reason  for  it.  As  I  said  to 
Senator  NELSON,  there  are  occasional  southwestern  swells  so  great  that  they 
may  reverse  the  current  for  the  time  being,  and  they  would  move  obstacles  on 
the  bottom.  The  current  does  not  move  coal;  it  moves  fine  particles  of  sand. 
What  moved  that  coal  across  the  bay  was  this :  These  lines  here  [indicating  on 
the  diagram]  are  kelp,  which  indicate  rocky  areas.  That  coal  dropped  on  the 
rocky  bottom,  was  affected  by  the  heavy  waves,  and  it  simply  drifted  over  the 
bottom  and  across  it  until  it  struck  Long  Beach  and  was  thrown  upon  it  by  the 
waves. 

Mr.  President,  in  the  first  place  southwesterly  swells  are  not 
uncommon ;  the  westerly  is  the  regular  swell  incident  to  that  coast ; 
and  here  we  have  a  statement  that  this  discriminating  current,  alluded 
to  by  Mr.  Corthell,  does  not  move  coal,  while  it  moves  fine  particles  of 
sand !  This  littoral  current  will  not  move  coal,  but  it  will  move  fine 
particles  of  sand.  We  reach  the  remarkable  conclusion  that  coal  drifts 
south  and  sand  goes  north ;  that  one  is  moved  by  a  current  which  influ 
ences  coal,  and  the  other  by  a  current  influencing  sand ! 

Mr.  President,  it  is  a  matter  of  fact,  notorious  upon  that  coast, 
that  objects  frequently  float  southerly.  In  two  or  three  cases  where 
persons  lost  their  lives  by  drowning  the  remains  were  picked  up  south 
of  the  scene  of  disaster.  It  may  be  said  that  this  was  only  an  occasional 
manifestation,  but  that  it  was  not  the  rule,  that  the  current  usually 
tends  in  the  other  direction.  But  no  such  deduction  is  authorized.  But 
if  there  were  any  danger  of  the  accumulation  of  sand  at  Point  Firmin, 
inside  this  breakwater,  how  is  it  that  there  is  at  that  place  today  a 
naked  bluff?  How  is  it  that  there  is  no  sand  spit?  How  is  it  that 
there  are  no  sand  dunes,  no  accumulations  around  Point  Firmin  indi 
cating  the  tendency  claimed?  If  the  sand  drifts,  as  stated  by  this 
expert,  northerly,  it  would  naturally  be  detained  in  the  neighborhood 
of  Point  Firmin,  and  would  certainly  extend  to  that  point.  Right  here 
I  may  remark — perhaps  I  should  have  said  it  in  connection  with 
another  point — there  there  are  no  severe  storms  beating  against  Point 
Firmin.  The  unworn  base  of  the  bluff  proves  this.  The  material  is 
comparatively  soft  and  could  not  resist  heavy  waves.  The  unscathed 
shores  disposes  of  the  pretense  that  San  Pedro  Bay  is  a  storm  center. 

Mr.  President,  the  inner  harbor  at  San  Pedro  is  exposed  to  these 
so-called  terrible  southeasterly  tempests.  The  land  lying  upon  both 
sides  of  the  inner  harbor  is  almost  level.  There  is  nothing  to  prevent 
winds  sweeping  across  the  inner  harbor ;  and  yet  no  one  ever  heard  of 
a  vessel  within  its  confines  being  harmed  by  any  storm  from  any  quar 
ter.  The  swell  which  does  injury,  which  strains  chains,  which  divorces 
the  anchor  from  the  ship,  comes  from  the  west ;  the  southeast  wind, 
seldom  serious  even  in  connection  with  the  swell,  must  be  harmless 
without  it. 


SPEECHES  OP  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  361 

Mr.  President,  in  opening  this  argument  I  said  that  it  was  prob 
lematical  whether  the  proposed  structure  at  Santa  Monica  would  ever 
be  of  much  protective  value.  In  support  of  my  assertion  I  have  the 
testimony  of  Major  Raymond,  who  was  examined  before  the  com 
mittee.  He  made  the  following  comments  in  this  connection.  It  is  of 
importance  and  I  direct  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  it : 

Major  RAYMOND.  I  can  state  generally  what  were  the  essential  differences 
which  we  thought  were  in  favor  of  San  Pedro  as  a  location,  as  compared  with 
location  farther  up  the  coast.  To  my  own  mind,  as  I  remember  it  now,  the 
extension  of  the  present  harbor  of  San  Pedro  and  the  improvements  there,  at  an 
inconsiderable  expense  to  the  Government,  made  a  rather  remarkable  impression. 

Senator  WHITE,  of  California.     In  what  respect? 

Major  RAYMOND.  Because  jetty  improvements  of  that  kind  have  not,  as  a 
rule,  been  successful  in  this  country.  The  depth  of  water  at  San  Pedro  was 
increased  from  2  or  3  feet — the  original  depth — to  about  14  feet  at  mean  low 
water.  The  thing  that  made  it  especially  interesting  to  me  was  the  examina 
tion  of  the  changed  front  in  the  inner  harbor,  which  was  so  trifling  as  com 
pared  with  the  other  places  on  the  Atlantic  coast.  All  the  phenomena  seemed 
to  me  less  marked  than  any  other  place  where  I  have  been  in  practice.  The 
shoaling  was  slow  there.  The  tide  is  about  5  feet,  I  think.  That  there  should 
be  a  jetty  harbor  of  that  kind  so  successful,  and  that  the  depth  of  water  should 
be  so  increased,  and  that  the  problem  should  be  so  simply  solved,  was  a  matter 
of  very  great  interest  to  me.  I  could  see  that  the  inner  basin,  the  inner 
harbor,  the  inner  anchorage,  could  be  extended  very  readily  without  difficulty; 
and  that  was  a  feature  in  the  future  improvement  which  was  very  advantageous. 

The  inner  anchorage  is  a  very  important  thing,  especially  in  time  of  war, 
Torpedo  boats  can  run  into  the  inner  harbor,  protected  from  the  fire  of  the 
enemy.  That  was  the  thing  most  advantageous.  When  we  came  to  examine 
the  problem,  step  by  step,  we  did  not  find  any  point  in  which  the  other  loca 
tion  seemed  superior  to  San  Pedro,  and  we  found  several  points  in  which 
we  thought  San  Pedro  superior  to  the  other  location.  My  own  opinion  is 
that  a  breakwater  harbor,  such  as  that  proposed  at  Santa  Monica,  parallel 
to  a  nearly  rectilinear  shore,  is  fatal.  I  do  not  know  of  any  place  where  there 
is  an  exactly  similar  harbor,  and  I  can  not  conceive  a  place  where  I  would 
be  willing  to  construct  it  where  the  outlying  breakwater  is  parallel  to  the 
shore,  as  in  this  case. 

Senator  WHITE,  of  California.  What  are  the  cardinal  defects  in  that  kind 
of  a  harbor? 

Major  RAYMOND.  Generally  speaking,  the  accessibility  would  be  very  good 
for  a  harbor  of  that  kind,  but  the  main  defect  in  such  a  harbor  is  that  the 
landing  facilities  are  in  the  most  exposed  part  of  the  harbor.  Generally, 
motions  of  the  waves  are  deflected  by  the  ends  of  the  breakwater,  and  the 
disturbance  is  generally  created  in  the  parts  of  the  harbor  farthest  from  the 
points  of  deflection.  I  do  not  remember  that  kind  of  a  harbor  in  any  place. 

Afterwards,  Colonel  Hains,  who  was  examined  upon  the  same 
topic,  thought  that  the  wharves  proposed  by  the  Southern  Pacific  to  be 
erected  could  be  protected  by  the  breakwater.  I  will  read  his  statement 
in  that  respect : 

Senator  WHITE,  of  California.  What  do  you  think  of  the  feasibility  of  such 
a  harbor  as  that  designed  at  Santa  Monica? 

Colonel    HAINS.     In   what   respect? 

Senator  WHITE,  of  California.     Would  it  be  a  success? 

Colonel  HAINS.     Do  you  mean  the  breakwater? 

Senator  WHITE,   of   California.     Yes. 

Colonel  HAINS.  I  think  that  this  breakwater  there  would  protect  these 
wharves  [indicating  on  the  map.]  I  do  not  think  they  need  much  protection. 
The  fact  that  they  use  these  wharves  so  much  without  a  breakwater  is  pretty 
good  evidence  that  they  need  very  little  protection  from  the  outside.  I  think 
that  a  breakwater  made  of  plank  would  accomplish  the  purpose. 

If  there  were  severe  storms  I  presume  it  would  be  admitted  that 
a  breakwater  of  plank  would  not  be  very  desirable,  or  there  would  be 
24 


362  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

no  excuse  for  this  application  for  a  three-million-dollar  appropriation. 

Colonel  Hains  thinks  the  wharves  designed  would  probably  be 
protected  by  a  breakwater.  But  his  declaration  shows  that  he  does  not 
anticipate  gales. 

Major  Raymond,  who  has  had  more  experience  in  breakwater 
construction  than  anyone  who  was  before  us,  is  of  the  opinion  that  the 
proposed  appropriation  would  not  accomplish  its  purpose,  and  says 
that  he  would  not  be  willing  to  undertake  the  work. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  we  are  here,  I  presume,  to  enact  a  law  pro 
viding  for  an  appropriation  to  be  expended  for  some  useful  purpose 
and  under  conditions  giving  reasonable  assurances  of  success.  We 
are  not  here  to  experiment.  Colonel  Hains  says,  in  speaking  of  the 
character  of  the  Port  Los  Angeles  breakwater — I  read  from  page  30: 

I  do  not  think  that  a  breakwater  parallel  with  the  coast  is  as  good  as  one 
which  connects  with  the  shore,  but  it  might  accomplish  the  purpose. 

Shall  we  engage  in  the  business  of  constructing  a  harbor  at  a  con 
demned  place  upon  an  uncertainty  as  to  the  result?  Shall  we  spend 
this  money  upon  a  spot  regarding  which  the  testimony  is  at  least  con 
flicting,  and  concerning  which  our  accredited  engineer,  who  has  had 
great  special  experience,  expresses  an  adverse  opinion?  Is  it  proper 
thus  to  risk  public  moneys? 

There  are  a.  number  of  incidental  matters  which  I  do  not  care  to 
allude  to  now,  but  which  may  be  mentioned  hereafter.  However,  I  will 
mention  one.  Commander  Taylor,  of  the  United  States  Navy,  was 
engaged  for  some  time  in  coast  and  geodetic  survey  upon  the  Pacific. 
His  views  were  placed  before  the  board  of  engineers  at  Los  Angeles, 
and  Mr.  Corthell  and  members  of  the  majority  of  the  Commerce  Com 
mittee  rely  not  a  little  upon  his  opinions.  He  strongly  favors  Santa 
Monica.  A  memorandum  of  his  theories  and  experiences  was  called 
to  the  attention  of  the  Craighill  board  by  Mr.  Hood,  who  seemed  to  be 
advised  concerning  the  same.  That  document  is  the  strongest  part  of 
the  Santa  Monica  presentation,  and  as  I  am  endeavoring  to  state  this 
W7hole  case  without  reservation,  I  will  ask  that  it  be  read,  and  will  fol 
low  it  with  a  statement  by  Professor  Davidson  upon  the  other  side  of 
the  matter.  I  refer  to  page  109  of  the  executive  document  from  which 
I  have  already  made  several  extracts.  I  ask  that  the  same  be  read  at 
the  desk. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER  (Mr.  FAULKNER  in  the  chair). 
The  Secretary  will  read  as  requested. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows : 

MEMORANDUM     REGARDING     A     BREAKWATER     AT     SANTA     MONICA. 

For  many  years  the  need  for  a  harbor  at  Santa  Monica  has  been  apparent. 
Southern  California  is  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  State  by  mountain  sys 
tems  and  needs  a  port  as  an  outlet  for  its  products.  The  center  of  the  busi 
ness  activity  of  Southern  California  is  Los  Angeles.  This  city  has  gr.-.wn  to 
be  too  great  to  let  it  be  anticipated  that  that  center  will  be  changed.  Indeed, 
the  fertile  plain  and  the  adjacent  valleys  of  which  it  is  now  the  depot  would 
require  such  a  port  if  Los  Angeles  were  not  there. 

San  Diego,  whatever  its  qualities  as  a  seaport,  is  too  far  to  the  south  ;  it  has 
practically  no  back  country  of  sufficient  importance  to  justify  a  great  sea 
port.  To  the  east  and  southeast  is  the  peninsula  of  Lower  California,  and 
farther  in  that  direction  lie  the  northern  provinces  of  Mexico.  But  the  ports 
of  the  Gulf  of  California  will  intercept  traffic  from  that  direction.  To  the 
north  and  northeast  is  a  country  of  great  productiveness,  but  that  country 
is  nearer  to  Los  Angeles  as  a  depot,  and  will  find  its  outlet  to  the  sea  near 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  363 

that  city.  As  to  the  harbor  of  San  Diego,  it  may  be  said  (as  of  all  harbors) 
that  it  is  not  entirely  satisfactory.  San  Francisco  itself,  which  ranks  as  the 
greatest  of  bar  harbors,  is  dangerous  to  enter  after  long-continued  stormy 
weather.  From  Puget  Sound  to  Magdalena  Bay,  Mexico,  few  harbors  exist, 
and  none  of  great  convenience.  It  is  natural,  therefore,  that  San  Diego  Har 
bor  should  be  regarded  of  value  on  account  of  the  great  scarcity  of  harbors 
on  the  coast.  It  is  not  denied  that  it  could  be  improved  and  its  bar  perhaps 
removed.  The  situation  there  is  favorable  to  certain  classes  of  engineering 
work,  but  the  object  of  such  work  is  not  apparent  when  the  position  is  not 
the  natural  sea  outlet  of  an  important  tract  of  country. 

A  creek  makes  into  the  land  at  Wilmington  and  San  Pedro,  affording  a 
shelter  to  small  vessels,  and  expensive  improvements  have  been  carried  on  for 
several  years  by  the  army  engineers,  which  have  slightly  benefited  it,  but, 
at  the  best  that  can  be  hoped,  it  can  never  have  the  accommodations  of  a 
great  harbor.  A  breakwater  to  include  sufficient  area  of  shelter  could  be 
built,  but  it  would  include  some  shoals  and  rocks  inside  of  it,  and  would  also 
receive  whatever  discharge  of  sediment  there  would  be  from  the  creek.  This 
creek  was  used  in  the  beginning  by  schooners  and  small  craft,  which  were  suf 
ficient  for  the  trade  of  the  then  unsettled  country.  The  circumstances  of  its 
location,  favorable  for  such  craft,  are  unfavorable  for  the  formation  of  a  great 
seaport  such  as  the  commerce  of  Southern  California  now  demands. 

We  come  now  to  that  locality  which  appears  specially  to  be  favored  by 
nature,  Santa  Monica. 

The  bay  of  Santa  Monica  is,  in  its  combination  of  natural  features,  unique 
on  the  Pacific  Coast.  Here  the  depth  of  water  increases  from  the  beach  out 
ward  with  an  ease  and  gradual  slope  for  several  miles.  Here  a  breakwater 
can  be  established  to  inclose  and  shelter  a  capacious  harbor,  without  being 
in  water  so  deep  as  to  make  its  construction  impracticable  or  even  difficult. 

The  marked  feature  of  the  Pacific  Coast  is  the  steep  slope  of  the  bottom 
as  we  move  from  shore  to  seaward.  This  rule  has  few  exceptions,  and  it 
results  that  along  the  entire  coast  a  breakwater  to  inclose  a  sufficient  sheltered 
area  would  have  to  be  placed  in  such  deep  water  as  to  be  impossible  of  con 
struction. 

Among  the  few  exceptions  is  the  bay  of  Santa  Monica.  It  is  a  remarkable 
coincidence  that  the  coast  line  in  a  deep  curve  here  approaches  nearer  than 
at  any  other  point  to  Los  Angeles  and  to  the  fertile  region  of  which  it  is  the 
depot. 

The  bay  of  Santa  Monica  has,  along  most  of  its  shore  line,  this  quality  of 
gradual  deepening  of  the  water,  the  bay  of  itself  being  occupied  by  a  subma 
rine  plateau  unique  upon  the  Pacific  Coast.  But  certain  portions  of  the  shore 
line  of  the  bay  have  other  advantages  in  addition.  The  town  of  Santa  Monica 
is  situated  at  a  point  on  the  shore  near  a  neighboring  range  of  mountains 
against  or  toward  which  blow  the  only  winds  of  violence.  The  force  of  the 
wind  blowing  against  a  great  barrier  is  deadened  for  some  distance  to  wind 
ward  of  such  barrier,  and  this  probably  accounts  for  the  well-known  fact 
that  the  winds  at  Santa  Monica  do  not  blow  with  violence.  The  swell  which 
rolls  in  at  this  anchorage  is  much  modified,  even  in  the  worst  weather,  by  the 
effect  of  the  large  islands  to  seaward  and  by  the  deep  recessed  position  of 
this  portion  of  the  bay  shore. 

I  have  had  considerable  experience  in  this  bay  while  conducting  the  surveys 
carried  on  there,  and  have  laid  at  anchor  through  all  seasons  of  the  year,  at 
and  near  Santa  Monica,  on  the  Government  vessel  which  I  commanded.  I 
have  never  seen  any  weather  in  which  a  vessel  could  not  ride  at  her  anchors 
there  in  safety,  and  but  few  occasions  when  unloading  at  a  wharf  was  imprac 
ticable. 

If  Southern  California  needs  a  port,  I  am  confident  that  Santa  Monica  is 
the  only  practicable  place  to  construct  such  a  port,  and  that  Southern  California 
does  urgently  need  a  port  there  can  be  no  longer  any  question.  The  mountain 
ranges  intervening  between  the  central  and  southern  parts  of  the  State  are  of 
so  "difficult  a  character  for  railroads  that  the  hauling  of  freight  across 
these  mountains  is  very  expensive,  and  the  products  of  the  southern  section 
of  the  State  have  now  become  so  numerous  and  important  that  the  construction 
of  a  proper  harbor  in  Southern  California  can  not  longer  be  neglected.  Also 
we  have  to  regard  Los  Angeles  no  longer  as  a  way  station,  but  as  a  truly 
terminal  point  for  several  systems  of  railroads  now  built  or  to  be  built.  With 
such  a  port  close  to  the  suburbs  of  Los  Angeles,  she  would  possess  a  most 


364  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE 

attractive  route  for  the  transportation  of  products  from  the  other  side  of 
the  Pacific  to  her  own  vicinity,  and  thence  across  the  continent. 

Is  a  breakwater  at  Santa  Monica  practicable,  convenient,  economical? 

Having  had,  some  years  ago,  the  opinion  of  an  able  and  experienced  civil 
engineer  as  to  the  amount  and  quality  of  rock  to  be  obtained  in  the  hills 
abreast  of  the  end  of  this  breakwater,  after  his  personal  examination,  made 
at  my  request,  I  am  justified  by  the  opinion  in  taking  for  granted  a  plentiful 
supply  of  good  rock  at  that  point.  With  this  basis  of  supply  close  at  hand, 
I  would  propose  a  breakwater  in  40  feet  depth  of  water,  3,000  yards  long,  in 
a  straight  line  parallel  to  the  shore,  or  with  a  slight  angle  at  the  center  of 
the  line,  the  angle  being  convex  to  seaward,  as  shown  on  the  chart  submitted 
in  blue.  A  section  of  it  is  shown  on  accompanying  sheet.  It  would  be  45 
feet  high,  20  feet  across  the  top,  225  feet  across  the  bottom.  Its  inner  face 
would  have  the  natural  slope  of  dumped  rock,  its  seaward  face  would  be 
extended  until  its  profile  would  be  a  modified  form  of  that  at  Plymouth,  Eng 
land.  This  cross  section  would  contain  677  square  yards,  and  the  whole 
breakwater,  3,000  yards  long,  would  contain  2,021,000  cubic  yards.  I  have 
taken  as  a  basis  of  cost  the  prices  at  which  contractors  have  successfully 
delivered  stone  at  the  breakwater  now  building  by  the  United  States  engineers 
at  Rockport,  Mass.,  being  an  average  for  two  years  of  65  cents  per  ton,  or  allow 
ing  2  tons  per  cubic  yard,  $1.30  per  cubic  yard.  The  difficulty  and  expense  are, 
however,  much  greater  in  delivering  rock  there  than  they  would  be  at  Santa 
Monica.  At  the  latter  the  hills  which  contain  the  rock  are  at  a  distance  of 
only  2,300  yards,  across  water  of  moderate  depths,  to  the  nearest  end  of  the 
breakwater.  A  tramway  on  piles  can  be  constructed  easily  and  cheaply  to 
connect  the  two,  and  the  quarries  can  be  located  in  the  hills  at  an  elevation 
sufficient  to  cause  gravity  to  move  the  loaded  cars  down,  and  bring  back  by 
their  weight  the  empty  cars.  It  is  reasonable,  therefore,  to  regard  this  esti 
mate  of  $1.30  per  cubic  yard  as  being  largely  in  excess  of  the  probable  cost. 
I  have,  however,  added  to  this  amount  33!  per  cent,  to  cover  the  installation 
of  working  plant,  the  opening  of  quarry,  the  building  of  tramway,  and  all 
contingencies,  as  follows: 

To  excavate  2,100,000  cubic  yards  and  deliver  same  in  place,  at  $1.30 

per   cubic   yard    $2,730,000 

To  install  plant,  etc.,  and  for  all  contingencies,  33 J  per  cent 910,000 

Total    $3,640,000 

It  is  my  belief  that  this  sum  is  much  in  excess,  and  that  a  breakwater  can 
built  for  $2,500,000. 

I  will  mention  here  that  a  smaller  breakwater  could  be  placed  in  30  feet 
depth  of  water,  2,000  yards  long,  and  of  similar  though  smaller  section  than 
the  above,  at  a  cost  of  $1,800,000,  and  would  afford  a  good  shelter.  It  would 
not,  however,  possess  the  qualities  of  a  great  port,  either  in  itself  or  in  its 
powers  of  expansion  for  future  needs,  and  it  is  a  great  port  which  Southern 
California  now  demands  for  its  growing  trade. 

Under  the  shelter  of  3.000  yards  breakwater,  with  wharves  properly  planned 
and  constructed,  130  ships  of  300  feet  length  could  lie  alongside  the  wharves 
and  leave  space  there  and  in  the  anchorage  ground  between  them  and  the 
breakwater  for  200  more  vessels  of  various  sizes.  A  breakwater  2,000  yards  long 
in  30  feet  depth  of  water  would  form  an  excellent  shelter,  but  I  would  recom 
mend  one  3,000  yards  long  in  40  feet  depth  of  water  as  the  wiser  project  of 
the  two.  It  would  in  fact,  be  a  perfect  project,  leaving  nothing  to  be  chanced. 
In  this  depth  a  breakwater  will  be  as  distant  from  shore  as  will  ever  be  neces 
sary.  Greater  area  of  shelter,  when  desired,  may  be  secured  by  extensions  of 
the  breakwater  on  its  own  line  parallel  to  the  shore. 

Finally,  I  submit  a  plan  of  such  breakwater,  shown  in  b|ue  print  on  the 
chart.  I  submit  also  a  section  of  same,  showing  details  of  proposed  construc 
tion. 

Respectfully, 

H.  C.  TAYLOR. 

NOTE — The  drawings,  etc.,  referred  to  by  Commander  Taylor  have  been 
mislaid,  the  foregoing  memorandum  having  been  written  several  years  ago. 

Mr.  WHITE.    I  have  had  this  document  read  because  it  has  been 
relied  upon  with  confidence  by  the  advocates  of  Santa  Monica,  and 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  365 

although  it  does  not  in  any  manner  sustain  any  claim  to  superiority 
on  the  part  of  the  site  upon  which  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  has 
made  its  pier,  I  presume  that  Taylor  had  reference  to  a  harbor  opposite 
the  town.  But  there  is  an  air  of  partisanship  about  Lieutenant  Tay 
lor's  statement  which  I  do  not  quite  understand.  For  instance,  he 
refers  to  an  improvement  at  the  inner  harbor  at  San  Pedro  as  being 
slightly  beneficial,  for  he  says: 

A  creek  makes  into  the  land  at  Wilmington  and  San  Pedro,  affording  a 
shelter  to  small  vessels,  and  expensive  improvements  have  been  carried  on  for 
several  years  by  the  Army  engineers,  which  have  slightly  benefited  it. 

The  engineer's  report  is  that  the  benefit  has  not  been  slight,  but 
that  it  has  been  remarkable.  There  has  been  an  increase  of  depth 
from  2  to  14  feet  at  low  tide  and  an  1 8- foot  low  tide  depth  is  antici 
pated.  Then  Lieutenant  Taylor  refers  to  the  discharge  of  sediment 
from  Wilmington  Creek.  There  is  no  sedimentary  discharge  of  an 
injurious  kind.  No  deposits  on  the  bar  or  outside  can  be  found.  I 
must  say  that  Lieutenant  Taylor  seems  to  be  a  special  advocate.  His 
figures  are  peculiar,  his  calculations  unique.  I  am  quite  willing  that 
his  expressions  shall  be  read  side  by  side  with  those  of  General  Craig- 
hill's  board. 

But  if  there  is  any  man  upon  the  Pacific  Coast  who  is  thoroughly 
familiar  with  all  topics  pertaining  to  hydrography  and  who  has  given 
to  Pacific  harbor  work  the  patient  toil  of  almost  a  lifetime,  that  man  is 
Prof.  George  Davidson,  a  gentleman  of  great  attainments  and  sterling 
worth.  His  views  of  Santa  Monica  Bay  I  wish  to  put  before  the  Sen 
ate.  No  more  valuable  expert  opinion  can  be  found  in  the  United 
States  or  elsewhere,  for  that  matter.  I  ask  that  the  Secretary  read  the 
memorandum  commencing  on  page  124,  Executive  Document  41. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  '  I  suggest  to  my  colleague  that  he  state  that 
Professor  Davidson  has  had  charge  of  the  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey 
on  the  Pacific  Coast  for  forty  years. 

Mr.    WHITE.    Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  He  is  author  of  the  Coast  Pilot,  and  is  the  best 
living  authority  on  nautical  matters  relating  to  the  hydrography  of  the 
ocean  and  coast  that  there  is  on  the  Pacific  Coast. 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  desire  to  say  further  that  during  the  hearings 
I  requested  Mr.  Corthell  to  state  whether  in  his  opinion  Professor 
Davidson  was  not  an  authority  upon  these  matters,  and  he  responded 
by  saying  that  he  had  great  regard  for  him. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  Secretary  will  read  as 
requested,  if  there  be  no  objection.  The  Chair  hears  none. 

The  SECRETARY  read  as  follows: 

MEMORANDUM    BY   PROF.    GEORGE   DAVIDSON,   UNITED   STATES    COAST  AND   GEODETIC 

SURVEY. 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  September  7,  1892. 

My  experience  begins  with  June,  1852,  when  the  disabled  steamer  California 
anchored  in  San  Pedro  Bay.  The  navy-yard  commission  was  on  board  of  her, 
and  to  prevent  great  delay  the  members  were  carried  to  San  Francisco  by  the 
United  States  Coast  Survey  steamer  Active. 

I  mention  this  merely  because  the  Active  was  then  transporting  me  for  the 
chronometer  determinations  of  the  longitude  of  all  southern  points  with  San 
Francisco.  Before  this  incident,  and  afterwards,  my  duties  compelled  me  to 
land  through  the  surf  at  all  the  exposed  stations  on  the  main  shore  and  the 
Santa  Barbara  Islands.  And  this  bears  upon  the  following  statement: 


366  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

In  December,  1852,  after  selecting  a  base  line,  I  was  waiting  for  a  steamer 
at  the  old  adobe  of  San  Pedro.  The  brig  Fremont  was  at  anchor  off  San  Pedro, 
and  rode  out  a  strong  southeast  gale  of  two  or  three  days'  duration.  (See  Coast 
Pilot,  1889,  pages  38  and  40.)  The  judgment  there  expressed  is  that  formed 
from  my  own  experience  through  subsequent  years,  the  experience  of  Coast 
Survey  officers,  naval  and  civilian,  and  of  captains  whom  I  have  known  to  be 
familiar  with  the  place. 

At  the  time  of  the  Fremont's  riding  out  the  gale  I  had  no  doubt  that  I  could 
have  landed  on  the  beach  in  a  well-manned  boat  from  the  Fremont. 

I  have  learned  no  facts  to  weaken  my  judgment  expressed  in  the  Coast 
Pilot.  Vessels  that  have  dragged  into  danger — and  they  have  been  remarkably 
few  in  the  last  forty-two  years — have  anchored  in  shoal  water  too  close  inshore, 
at  anchor  not  well  found  in  ground  tackle,  or  both;  and  I  express  my  judgment 
with  confidence  because  I  had  command  of  the  surveying  brig  /.  H.  Fauntleroy 
for  four  years  in  the  waters  from  San  Francisco  to  the  Gulf  of  Georgia,  and 
have  anchored  hundreds  of  times  over  every  character  of  bottom  and  varying 
depths  of  water,  under  stress  of  weather,  in  exposed  situations,  with  strong 
currents,  and  in  very  heavy  weather.  The  northern  weather  is  much  heavier 
than  the  southern. 

In  our  "  southeaster,"  the  swell  of  the  Pacific  conies  from  the  southwest 
and  along  the  greater  part  of  the  coast  breaks  squarely  upon  the  shore,  reach 
ing  from  profound  depths  at  a  very  short  distance  from  land.  The  only  fairly 
protected  part  of  the  coast  is  that  from  Point  Conception  eastward  and  south 
ward  to  between  San  Pedro  and  San  Diego.  There  is,  however,  a  marked  pecu 
liarity  of  the  winter  storms  of  this  coast  which  I  have  expressed  in  the  Coast 
Pilot,  the  farther  north  we  go  in  winter  the  heavier  are  the  gales.  In  this  low 
latitude  of  33!°  the  winter  storms  are  relatively  not  severe,  and,  combined  with 
this  character  of  the  storms,  the  great  islands  of  Santa  Barbara  form  barriers 
against  the  full  .force  of  the  winter  swell. 

In  the  latitude  of  San  Francisco,  37! °,  the  southwest  swell  frequently 
breaks  all  over  the  San  Francisco  bar  in  6  or  more  fathoms  of  water,  while  the 
swell  of  the  same  storm  would  not  break  on  the  bar  of  San  Diego,  where  the 
depth  of  water  is  less  than  4  fathoms.  (See  Coast  Pilot,  page  18.)  San  Pedro 
is  but  95  miles  from  San  Diego  and  not  so  open  to  the  swell,  because  the  great 
islands  of  San  Clemente  and  Santa  Catalina  serve  to  break  up  the  broad  ocean 
swell  of  the  winter  gales. 

This  low  latitude  and  these  protecting  islands  are  very  important  factors  in 
judging  of  the  safety  of  any  anchorage.  We  know  that  it  occasionally  breaks 
on  the  shoal  spots  of  95  fathoms  off  Cape  Mendocino,  and  I  have  laid  off  the 
breaking  bar  of  Humboldt  for  two  weeks,  but  at  the  same  time  there  would  be 
no  break  on  San  Diego  bar  and  no  danger  in  San  Pedro  Bay.  From  the  sum 
mit  of  Tamalpais  I  have  seen  a  large  English  vessel  forced  to  leave  her  anchor 
age  on  the  southern  edge  of  San  Francisco  bar  before  the  swell  was  breaking, 
and  such  a  vessel  would  lie  in  absolute  safety  at  the  same  time  in  San  Pedro 
Bay. 

Smaller  vessels  at  San  Pedro,  even  well  found  in  ground  tackle,  necessarily 
do  not  care  to  ride  out  a  "  southeaster  "  there,  with  its  wear  and  tear  and  the 
annoyances,  when  the  lee  of  Santa  Catalina  Island  is  only  18  miles  distant  and 
affording  them  ample  protection.  In  this  respect  the  anchorage  is  almost  as 
much  favored  as  Hueneme,  San  Buenaventura,  and  Santa  Barbara. 

One  plain  proof  of  the  comparative  weakness  of  the  destructive  action  of 
the  southeast  storms  on  this  southern  coast  is  seen  in  the  very  slow  wearing 
away  of  the  sandy  cliffs  and  of  the  bluff  immediately  at  San  Pedro;  nor  could 
the  exposed  wharves  of  this  region  stand  if  the  destructive  forces  of  the  winter 
storms  was  great. 

In  regard  to  the  anchorage  of  San  Pedro,  I  have  always  believed  that  there 
was  good  bottom  for  holding  ground.  The  bay  is  the  northwestern  limit  of 
a  very  extensive  plateau  of  comparatively  shoal  water  along  the  seaboard  from 
Point  Firmin  to  about  Newport,  and  the  whole  country  behind  the  shore  is 
sandy  and  so  low  that  in  winter  it  is  flooded  for  miles  inland  by  the  rains  and 
the  overflowing  of  the  low  banks  of  the  numerous  streams  frequently  changing 
their  courses.  The  detritus  from  these  streams  is  moved  seaward,  and  princi 
pally  to  the  westward  over  this  plateau,  and  helping  to  extend  it,  by  the  action 
of  the  inshore  eddy  current. 

I  believe  that  this  material,  mud,  sand,  and  gravel,  is  sufficiently  deep  to 
give  good  holding  ground  for  any  sized  vessel  if  properly  found  in  ground 
tackle. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  367 

I  may  mention  here  that  for  many  years  I  have  believed  that  San  Pedro 
Bay  is  an  admirable  location  for  a  breakwater  to  form  a  first-class  harbor  of 
refuge  against  winter  storms,  when  the  commerce  of  the  southern  coast  demands 
it.  Gen.  B.  S.  Alexander  and  myself  frequently  discussed  the  importance  of  a 
breakwater  here,  because  I  was  not  enamored  of  the  smaller  temporary  jetty 
scheme  which  he  had  proposed.  He  was  fully  alive  to  the  great  advantage 
of  a  breakwater  on  a  large  plan,  but  he  believed  the  commerce  did  not  then 
warrant  it,  and  that  the  Government  would  not  then  sanction  it ;  and  that  the 
relief  he  proposed  was  temporarily  sufficient.  With  the  chart  of  the  Coast 
Survey  before  us  we  have  drawn  rough  lines  of  the  suggested  breakwater  to 
cover  the  exigencies  of  vessels  entering  the  harbor  from  the  west  or  around  the 
exterior  extremity  of  the  breakwater,  and  to  give  free  movement  to  the  inshore 
eddy  current  carrying  its  material  to  the  westward.  (He  utilized  this  move 
ment  of  material  in  planning  the  present  jetty.) 

My  study  of  the  great  breakwaters  of  Europe  has  satisfied  my  judgment, 
and  I  see  clearly  that  a  capital  harbor  can  be  formed  in  San  Pedro  Bay  by  a 
breakwater  in  10  fathoms  of  water,  and  that  from  my  visits  to  Catalina  Island 
building  stone  can  be  had  in  any  quantity,  if  the  rock  of  San  Pedro  hill  is  too 
soft,  as  I  believe  it  is. 

SANTA    MONICA    BAY. 

I  am  not  unfamiliar  with  Santa,  Monica  Bay,  but  do  not  know  it  so  well  as 
I  know  San  Pedro.  I  think  the  same  would  be  said  by  all  sailing  and  steamship 
captains  on  the  southern  seaboard. 

I  was  along  the  "  West  Beach  "  as  early  as  1852  and  1853.  In  1872  I  had 
the  following  experience  on  the  shores  of  Santa  Monica  Bay.  With  a  loaded 
wagon  I  followed  the  beach  from  the  arroyo  east  of  Santa  Monica  to  Point 
Dume.  The  high  bluffs  and  cliffs  came  so  sharply  to  the  shore,  and  the  arroyos 
there  so  deep  that  no  road  was  practicable  above  high  water,  and  I  had  to 
travel  along  the  beach  at  low  water.  At  Point  Dume  a  very  fierce  westerly 
wind  sprang  up  and  retarded  my  operations  so  that  in  returning  to  Santa 
Monica  I  was  on  the  beach  through  two  low  waters.  I  found  the  beach  torn 
away  along  the  whole  shore  line,  and  met  with  rocky  obstructions,  which  in 
some  cases  had  been  wholly  uncovered  by  the  washing  away  of  the  sands.  As 
we  approached  Santa  Monica  the  evidences  of  this  destructive  action  became 
more  and  more  marked,  and  for  the  last  2  or  3  miles  the  beach  was  torn  away 
from  10  to  12  feet  in  depth.  We  met  a  friend  from  the  Santa  Monica  arroyo 
driving  his  buggy  on  the  inner  edge  of  the  beach  of  four  days  before,  where  he 
was  10  to  12  feet  above  the  new  beach,  and  he  was  in  such  a  hazardous  position 
that  we  had  to  relieve  him.  When  I  soon  afterwards  left  Los  Angeles  via  San 
Pedro  there  were  no  signs  whatever  of  damage  done  to  the  beach  there. 

Afterwards  when  I  was  appealed  to  for  a  letter  recommending  the  location 
of  Santa  Monica  for  a  commercial  wharf  I  related  the  above  facts  and  refused 
to  give  an  unqualified  indorsement  of  the  location. 

During  the  hydrographic  survey  of  Santa  Monica  Bay  from  Point  Vincente 
to  Point  Dume  by  the  Coast  Survey,  the  officer  commanding  the  surveying  ves 
sel  reported  that  when  at  anchor  in  the  vicinity  of  Santa  Monica,  with  a  strong 
westerly  breeze  blowing,  and  the  inshore  eddy  current  running  to  the  north 
ward  along  the  shore,  the  vessel  rode  to  the  current  and  her  rolling  in  the  swell 
falling  directly  on  shore  was  so  large  and  disagreeable  that  the  vessel  had  to 
weigh  anchor  and  seek  a  more  comfortable  berth. 

I  have  had  no  personal  experience  of  the  winter  storms  at  the  head  of 
Santa  Monica  Bay.  A  glance  at  the  chart  will  demonstrate  that  it  is  more 
squarely  open  to  the  southwest  swell  than  San  Pedro. 

In  the  winter  of  1888-89,  when  my  party  was  on  the  Los  Angeles  plains,  I 
visited  the  wharf  at  Newport  to  learn  what  effect  the  winter's  storms  had  upon 
it.  This  wharf  is  situated  15  miles  eastward  of  San  Pedro,  and  is  more  exposed 
to  the  open  sea.  It  is  located  at  the  head  of  a  submarine  valley,  just  as  that 
art  Redortdo  Beach  in  Santa  Monica  Bay,  but  the  storms  had  not  sprung  a 
plank.  (See  Coast  Pilot,  page  35,  bottom.)  At  the  same  time  I  understood 
that  the  end  of  the  wharf  at  Redondo  had  been  badly  damaged.  (Coast  Pilot, 
page  46.) 

In  conclusion,  I  may  say  that  a  few  years  since  I  was  consulted  to  express 
an  opinion  upon  the  feasibility  of  a  harbor  or  wharf  or  anchorage  in  Santa 
Monica  Bay,  between  Point  Dume  Cove  and  the  vicinity  of  La  Ballona.  I 
presented  what  facts  I  then  had,  exhibited  tracings  of  the  original  surveys,  and 
made  such  explanations  to  the  deeply  interested  parties  that  they  abandoned 
the  project. 

GEORGE  DAVIDSON. 


368  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  President,  this  resume  of  the  situation  by  the 
best  advised  man  upon  the  Pacific  Coast,  one  who  knows  more  about 
the  hydrographic  conditions  surrounding  this  issue  than  any  other 
individual,  can  not  but  be  a  most  valuable  contribution  to  this  discus 
sion. 

Not  only  was  Professor  Davidson's  information  before  the  Craig- 
hill  board,  but  the  statement  of  Lieutenant  Taylor  was  likewise 
received.  The  decision  of  the  new  board  was  made  upon  a  complete 
case.  Lieutenant  Taylor  has  recently  declared  that  he  adhered  to  the 
presentation  above  cited,  and  Professor  Davidson  has  informed  me 
that  he  sees  no  reason  to  depart  from  the  opinion  which  has  been 
repeated  here  to-day. 

There  was  much  testimony  before  the  Craighill  board  supporting 
the  views  of  Professor  Davidson.  The  hearing  lately  conducted  by  the 
Commerce  Committee  is  of  little  moment  when  contrasted  with  the 
examination  made  by  the  board  of  engineers  of  1892. 

If  Senators  who  care  to  thoroughly  understand  this  case  will  read 
the  evidence  and  exhibits  returned  by  the  board  of  1892  the  justice  of 
my  remark  will  be  conceded.  That  board  had  all  the  information 
given  before  the  Commerce  Committee,  except  only  that  at  that  time 
the  Southern  Pacific  wharf  was  not  in  operation.  I  imagine  that  the 
majority  of  the  members  of  the  Committee  on  Commerce  (I  do  not 
include  the  chairman)  have  not  thoroughly  digested  the  evidence 
reported  by  the  Craighill  board.  On  page  62  of  that  paper  will  be 
found  the  statement  of  Mr.  Johnson,  with  whom  I  was  well  acquainted. 
I  have  much  confidence  in  his  accuracy.  He  does  not  express  himself, 
perhaps,  with  that  technical  correctness  which  is  preferable  in  such 
controversies,  but  his  remarks  are  to  the  point.  He  resided  in  San 
Pedro  for  years  and  spoke  with  knowledge.  I  ask  the  Secretary  to 
read  the  statement  of  Mr.  Johnson,  commencing  at  the  foot  of  page 
62,  to  the  end  of  the  statement. 

The  VICE-PRESIDENT.    The  Secretary  will  read  as  indicated. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows: 

Mr.  JOHNSON.  Well,  I  will  say  the  little  facts  I  know  about  the  harbor.  I 
came  here  in  1852,  in  December,  forty  years  ago,  in  the  bark  America.  I  went 
to  anchor  in  the  Bay  of  San  Pedro;  rode  out  two  heavy  southeasters  with 
safety;  two  anchors,  one  with  45  and  the  other  with  50  fathoms  of  chain. 
Then  from  that  time  until  1854  I  lived  at  San  Pedro,  on  the  point  which  they 
call  now  Timms  Point,  in  that  neighborhood.  Saw  vessels  coming  there,  few, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  and  two  little  steamers  that  were  running  there  then, 
the  only  steamers  on  the  coast  —  the  Seabright  and  the  Ohio.  And  they  got 
there  in  all  kinds  of  waters,  and,  with  the  exception  of  one  losing  her  anchor 
once  without  having  their  chain  shackled,  there  was  never  any  trouble  about 
riding  out  the  gale,  so  far  as  the  holding  ground  was  concerned,  within  a 
couple  of  miles  of  the  bluff.  Southeast  from  there  to  here  there  is  more  or  less 
loose  sand.  Of  course,  in  the  southeast  wind,  the  only  wind  -that  is  liable  to 
do  any  damage,  the  vessels  would  naturally  drift  inshore  toward  the  water, 
where  the  anchorage  will  hold  better.  In  1854  I  was  engaged  by  John  Ord, 
the  United  States  surveyor  at  the  time,  to  run  him  about  the  coast,  surveying 
—  him  and  his  party.  I  was  engaged  —  the  vessel  and  myself.  And  I  got  in 
the  Bay  of  San  Pedro  there  in  all  kinds  of  weather  during  the  winter  months 
in  1853,  1854,  and  1855,  and  part  of  1856;  got  to  anchor  there  in  the  night  and 
day,  and  all  kinds  of  waters,  and  I  never  had  any  trouble  of  laying  there  safe, 
as  far  as  the  anchorage  is  concerned,  to  hold,  as  long  as  the  moorage  and 
tackles  are  good.  Since  that  time,  for  fourteen  years,  I  was  running  in  and  out 
the  bay,  night  and  day,  any  kind  of  weather,  summer  and  winter ;  anchored  in 
every  place  and  any  place  within  the  anchorage  as  laid  down  in  our  official 
chart,  and  never  had  any  trouble.  And  from  that  time  I  stopped  following  the 
sea  and  having  anything  to  do  with  the  vessels.  But  I  resided  in  the  neighbor- 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  369 

hood  and  saw  every  vessel  there.  And  no  vessels  ever  dragged  their  anchor 
age  who  had  their  anchors  clear.  Those  who  dragged  their  anchorage  either 
parted  their  chain  or  they  had  a  fouled  anchor  which  they  neglected  to  clear 
before  the  storm  came  up. 

Now,  with  regard  to  the  inner  harbor,  we  all  know  there  is  about  18  feet  of 
water  there  to  go  over  at  high  tide.  Vessels  go  in  there  and  they  are  well 
secured.  They  are  like  in  a  pond  when  they  are  in  there.  And  the  outer  har 
bor  is  protected  from  all  winds,  with  the  exception  of  the  east  and  southeast. 
The  southwest  wind  that  is  prevailing  here  during  the  months  of  February  and 
March,  and  sometimes  a  part  of  April,  they  are  the  strongest  gales  we  have 
on  this  coast,  which  every  seafaring  man  knows,  because  they  blow  more  toward 
shore  than  any  other  wind ;  raise  a  heavier  sea.  San  Pedro  there  is  protected 
by  Point  Firmin.  It  is  only  the  wind  from  the  east  and  southeast.  Catalina 
Island  protects  part  of  the  harbor,  but  not  sufficient  for  vessels  to  lie  perfectly 
smooth  in  smooth  water. 

Now,  with  the  money  that  has  been  expended  in  that  harbor  there,  with 
very  little  breakwater  insufficient  water  there  to  build  it  on  a  solid  foundation, 
which  is  not  to  be  found  in  every  other  place,  a  small  breakwater  would  inclose 
there  a  couple  of  thousands  acres  for  their  deep-sea  harbor.  The  inside  harbor 
is  nearly  as  good  as  finished.  And  we  would  have  plenty  of  facilities  for  all 
the  railroad  companies,  for  all  the  community  that  would  ever  live  in  that 
neighborhood,  for  warehouses  and  everything  else;  lots  of  fine,  level  soil,  and 
the  facilities  would  be  great.  I  heard  a  gentleman  this  morning  speaking  about 
ships  going  up  to  the  Columbia  River  to  get  to  Santa  Monica.  I  have  followed 
the  sea  since  1841,  and  I  couldn't  think  even  Columbus  himself  would  have 
traveled  so  far  to  find  the  port  of  San  Pedro  or  Santa  Monica  as  to  go  to  the 
Columbia  River.  Any  vessel  —  or  in  fact,  to  make  it  short,  allow  me  to  state 
that  we  must  in  the  future  look  to  our  trade  by  water.  We  expect  to  have 
communication  from  South  America,  West  Indies,  or  at  least  Central  America 
and  Mexico.  To  have  that  trade  we  are  nearest  to  Los  Angeles  of  any  of  the 
towns. 

In  regard  of  making  harbors  what  does  a  seaman  want?  A  good  light 
house?  We  have  got  it  in  San  Pedro.  We  have  got  Catalina  lying  out  there 
for  a  point  of  land  to  navigate  by.  We  have  a  Government  reservation  at  San 
Pedro,  if  the  Government  wants  to  build  any  fortifications,  or  anything.  They 
have  500  square  varas  of  land  there  and,  in  fact,  any  facility  anybody  wants  to 
have  for  the  sake  of  a  harbor. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  time  between  San  Francisco  and  here,  the  freight 
and  the  passenger  traffic  that  has  been  carried  in  former  years  is  nearly  done 
away  with.  Everything  goes  by  railroad  that  comes  from  there.  We  must  not 
look  to  San  Francisco  for  our  trade.  We  must  look  to  the  East  by  water  to 
have  cheap  transportation.  Consequently,  if  we  get  it  by  water  we  are  nearest 
to  Los  Angeles  of  any  port.  Any  little  freight  or  passengers  that  come  from 
San  Francisco  to  Santa  Monica  they  gain  a  little  time,  that  is  true.  But,  outside 
of  that,  what  is  there  in  Santa  Monica  to  protect  shipping?  It  is  open  to  the 
south,  and  we  know  we  have  heavy  gales  from  the  south  and  southwest.  They 
speak  about  water  being  smooth  there.  I  have  been  there  hundreds  of  times, 
and  always  found  plenty  of  surf  for  the  bathers  to  bathe  in,  and  heavy  swells. 
I  have  known  vessels  to  drag  there,  and  they  had  to  send  steamers  there  in  the 
month  of  May,  1878,  to  pull  them  out,  keep  them  from  going  ashore,  heavy 
swell,  undertow,  and  one  thing  and  another.  Anchors  didn't  hold  up  laying 
alongside  of  the  wharf.  They  were  destroyed  there. 

In  regard  to  the  anchorage  outside  in  Santa  Monica,  I  can't  tell,  for  the 
reason  I  never  sounded  much,  other  than  the  Point  Dume.  I  was  up  there  with 
John  Ord,  and  he  sounded  there  and  put  some  signals  ashore. 

In  regard  to  Redondo,  my  friend  here  has  said  all  that  could  be  said  in 
regard  to  it.  There  is  deep  water,  plenty  of  it;  protected  from  the  southeast, 
it  is  true,  but  it  is  open  to  the  westward.  If  the  gentlemen  wish  to  inquire  in 
regard  to  anything  else  I  would  like  to  state.  I  don't  like  to  take  up  all  your 
time. 

Mr.  WHITE.  This  is  the  opinion  of  a  man  of  experience,  who 
derived  his  knowledge  not  from  theories  and  statements  of  others,  but 
from  his  own  interpretation  of  events  which  had  transpired  under  his 
direct  notice. 

I  do  not  propose  to  expend  any  time  with  the  proposition  that  it 
would  be  of  advantage  to  have  the  harbor  at  Santa  Monica  because 


370  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

of  its  greater  proximity  to  the  city  of  Los  Angeles,  for  I  do  not  believe 
that  that  fact  is  of  surhcient  importance  to  affect  the  result.  Nor  do  I 
care  to  discuss  the  relative  merits  of  the  two  localities;  the  superior 
advantages  of  Santa  Monica  as  a  most  delightful  seaside  resort  are  too 
well  known  to  require  elaboration.  Commercial  considerations  should 
control  our  decision. 

I  have  just  procured  the  time  and  distance  tables  issued  by  the 
Southern  Pacific  Company  for  the  use  of  its  employees  exclusively, 
and  by  which  its  trains  are  operated  and  its  freight  tariffs  made.  This 
schedule  shows  that  the  distances  from  Los  Angeles  to  San  Pedro  and 
Port  Los  Angeles,  respectively,  are  as  follows : 

From  Los  Angeles  to  San  Pedro,  22.10  miles. 

From  Los  Angeles  to  Port  Los  Angeles,  20.70  miles. 

I  have  already  called  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  circum 
stance  that  at  San  Pedro,  or  Wilmington,  there  is  a  large  area  in  imme 
diate  proximity  to  the  inner  harbor  owned  by  the  State  of  California, 
inalienable  because  of  its  tide  character,  and  subject  to  use  under  lim 
ited  franchises,  and  therefore  held  for  the  benefit  of  the  public.  I  think 
I  have  already  shown  that  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  the  possibility  of  any 
other  institution  than  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  obtaining  access 
to  the  water  of  Santa  Monica  Bay,  where  Port  Los  Angeles  is  located, 
except  at  a  very  great  expenditure  of  money.  In  my  opinion  no  other 
wharf  will  be  built  there  for  years. 

Mr.  President,  what  is  the  amendment  which  I  nave  introduced 
and  upon  which  I  ask  a  vote?  What  is  the  proposition  which  I  make 
to  the  Senate  regarding  the  subject?  The  gist  of  the  matter  is  the 
making  of  an  appropriation  and  the  expenditure  of  the  money  at  either 
San  Pedro  or  Port  Los  Angeles,  the  location  to  be  determined  by  a 
board  consisting  of  an  officer  of  the  United  States  Navy,  of  rank  not 
less  than  commander,  to  be  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy ;  a 
member  of  the  Corps  of  Engineers  of  the  United  States  Army,  to  be 
selected  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  a  member  of  the  Coast  and 
Geodetic  Survey,  to  be  selected  by  the  Superintendent  of  the  Survey. 

Now,  I  ask  those  who  are  disposed  to  be  fair,  who  wish  this  im 
portant  subject  determined  accurately,  what  objection  can  be  rationally 
made  to  this  plan.  An  objection  might,  indeed,  be  urged  upon  the 
part  of  those  who  advocate  San  Pedro  and  who  are  interested  on  the 
part  of  the  Government  in  the  disbursement  of  public  moneys,  upon  the 
ground  that  two  boards  have  already  reported  against  Santa  Monica, 
and  therefore  it  may  be  said  that  we  are  going  too  far  in  selecting  a 
third  tribunal  when  we  have  two  positive  reports  made  by  competent 
persons.  In  offering  the  amendment  I  do  not  in  the  slightest  degree 
impugn  the  motive,  question  the  integrity,  or  doubt  the  capacity  of  the 
eight  distinguished  gentlemen  who  have  passed  upon  this  subject.  I 
believe  that  as  to  the  location  of  the  harbor  their  views  are  correct.  I 
have  entire  confidence  in  the  accuracy  of  their  positions,  but  a  majority 
of  the  Commerce  Committee  and  several  Senators  who  affirm  that  they 
have  thought  about  this  subject  for  seven  or  eight  years  announce  that 
the  engineers  are  wrong ;  that  the  boards  are  mistaken ;  that  these 
eight  impartial  honest  servants  of  the  Government  are  all  misin 
formed  ;  that  among  these  eight  scientific  men  of  integrity  there  was 
not  one  competent  to  pass  judgment  or  able  to  reach  the  true  conclu 
sion.  There  seems  to  be  a  notion  in  some  quarters  that  the  Mendell 
and  Craighill  boards  were  prejudiced.  Why,  I  am  at  loss  to  know. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  371 

There  is  no  evidence  or  suspicion  justifying  such  a  conclusion,  unless 
it  be  found  in  the  opinion  of  a  majority  of  the  committee  to  the  effect 
that  both  boards  reached  erroneous  results. 

But,  Mr.  President,  as  soon  as  it  was  asserted  or  intimated  that 
there  had  not  been  an  absolutely  impartial  and  unbiased  examination, 
as  soon  as  it  was  intimated  that  the  second  board  was  influenced  by 
the  first  board,  and  that  there  was  an  esprit  de  corps  existing  among 
those  officers  which  made  it  impossible  for  one  to  determine  anything 
against  the  other,  it  was  suggested  by  one  of  my  associates  of  the 
Commerce  Committee  that  we  might  make  the  appropriation  and  leave 
the  determination  of  this  issue  between  these  two  points  to  an  admit 
tedly  uninfluenced  tribunal  appointed  pursuant  to  a  plan  agreed  on  by 
Congress. 

i  am  not  irrevocably  committed  to  the  plan  proposed  in  my 
amendment.  I  have  no  desire  to  provide  for  the  selection  of  a  board 
which  will  not  do  equal,  exact,  and  complete  justice  to  all.  I  want 
a  board  satisfactory  to  the  most  critical.  I  want  no  one  save  persons 
of  integrity,  of  capacity,  and  without  partiality.  I  wish  a  board  upon 
whom  those  who  favor  Santa  Monica  and  those  who  prefer  San 
Pedro  can  alike  look  with  confidence  and  upon  whose  judgment 
any  right-thinking  man  should  be  willing  to  rest.  But  what  do 
we  encounter?  It  is  to  this  most  indefensible  part  of  the  Santa 
Monica  contention  that  I  attract  the  attention  of  Senators.  Here  we 
have  a  harbor  site  condemned  officially.  It  has  no  legal  indorsement. 
The  employed  agents  of  interested  parties,  and  with  whom  certain 
Senators  seem  to  concur,  declare  that  we  should  reject  all  the  evidence 
bearing  official  authenticity.  The  point  is  made  that  the  reports  of  the 
eight  engineers  should  be  rejected  because  not  founded  upon  fact,  or 
because  conclusions  not  properly  deducible  from  facts  presented  have 
been  announced.  But  are  we  to  proceed  without  any  favorable  intima 
tion  from  any  of  our  officers? 

Let  me  ask  those  who  oppose  my  view,  Why  object  to  the  appoint 
ment  of  a  skilled  and  unbiased  commission  to  pass  upon  the  subject? 
If  he  be  not  satisfied  with  that  which  has  been  done,  if  it  be  contended 
that  the  action  of  previous  boards  must  be  disregarded,  can  we  not 
find  some  one  somewhere  to  whom  we  will  be  willing  to  commit  this 
subject?  Will  Senators  who  have  no  more  knowledge  of  the  situa 
tion  than  that  derived  from  the  cursory  and  scattered  hearings  before 
the  committee  pretend  to  tell  me  that  they  know  absolutely  and  con 
clusively  that  these  eight  officers  of  the  Government  were  wrong, 
and  that  they  are  so  satisfied  of  this  that  they  want  no  more  light; 
that  the  glorious  radiance  flashing  from  the  information  which  they 
have  received  here  renders  the  advent  of  other  knowledge  impossible? 
That  the  limit  of  intellectual  absorption  has  been  attained?  Is  this 
the  position?  Will  anyone  admit  that  he  is  unwilling  to  lay  this 
matter  before  a  competent,  impartial  board  ?  Yes ;  the  advocates  of 
Santa  Monica  must  so  concede.  They  will  not  consent  to  the  sub 
mission  of  their  pretensions  to  any  person  or  officer.  They  say  in 
effect  by  this  refusal  that  no  board  will  report  in  favor  of  their  loca 
tion.  They  decline  to  submit  their  arguments  to  competent  scrutiny. 
Why?  Not  because  they  think  their  success  possible.  They  would 
not  then  refuse.  They  decline,  because  —  and  there  is  no  other 
deduction  possible  from  their  conduct  —  they  know  that  no  impar 
tial  and  competent  tribunal  will  decide  in  their  favor.  They  fear 
fairness. 


372  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Is  the  constitution  of  the  proposed  board  objected  to?  If  so, 
why  not  suggest  improvement?  I  and  those  who  are  contending  in 
conjunction  with  me  are  prepared  to  do  that  which  is  honest  and 
equitable.  Is  it  possible  to  form  any  commission  to  constitute  any 
board  to  which  the  majority  of  the  committee  will  be  willing  to  sub 
mit?  Evidently  it  is  not  possible.  Mr.  President,  you  can  not  find, 
you  can  not  devise,  you  can  not  suggest  any  tribunal,  any  board,  any 
committee,  any  qualified  person  or  persons  to  whom  this  discretion 
will  be  committed  by  my  friends  of  the  opposition.  They  rest  in 
security  upon  the  theory  that  Senators  are  ready  to  vote  against  the 
report  of  the  Government  engineers  and  against  everything  official, 
are  willing  to  appropriate  in  the  face  of  authoritative  condemnation, 
and  they  do  not  therefore  propose  to  risk  any  board. 

This  sort  of  procedure  may  sometime  —  surely  it  ought  to  be  — 
condemned.  Here  are  three  millions  of  money,  Senators,  to  be  dis 
bursed  in  defiance  of  official  recommendation.  How  are  you  to  justify 
this  outlay?  Where  is  your  authority?  Have  you  any  official 
indorsement  at  all?  Two  boards  have  reported  adversely.  You  say 
that  they  were  not  fair,  that  they  were  in  error.  Do  jou  not  think 
it  well  to  have  the  approval  of  some  one  not  interested  and  who  is 
possessed  of  technical  knowledge  before  you  make  this  expenditure? 
The  answer  comes  "No;  we  will  not  consent  to  this  amendment." 
"  We  have  waited  long  enough,"  it  is  said.  True,  you  have  waited 
long.  You  have  never  had  the  concurrence  of  Senator,  Representa 
tive,  or  engineer.  You  have  waited  long  indeed  to  find  anyone  com 
petent  and  impartial  treating  this  matter  your  way. 

Now,  at  this  hour  when  the  committee  reports  in  favor  of  an 
appropriation  for  an  unrecommended  and  repudiated  place  we  are 
asked  to  vote  for  that  report  to  appropriate  this  enormous  sum  sim 
ply  upon  the  general  evidence  taken  before  the  Commerce  Committee, 
which,  as  the  record  will  show,  is  of  little  significance  and  in  defiance 
of  the  authorities  to  whom  we  are  in  the  habit  of  committing  such 
matters.  Why  this  extraordinary  zeal  to  do  something  unprece 
dented? 

Mr.  President,  when  the  Southern  Pacific  Company  built  its  pier 
at  Port  Los  Angeles  no  one  had  any  idea  of  erecting  any  breakwater 
in  that  part  of  the  open  ocean.  It  has  attracted  us  there.  The  com 
mittee  proposes  to  use  now  $3,098,000,  and  Heaven  only  knows  how 
much  more  in  the  end,  to  guard  and  make  convenient  the  private 
property  mentioned.  What  will  the  breakwater  protect?  If  it  answers 
its  purpose,  as  those  who  are  advocating  it  claim  that  it  will,  it  will 
defend  the  railroad  pier  and  not  another  structure.  There  is  nothing 
else  in  the  bay;  there  is  nothing  in  the  neighborhood;  there  is  no 
inner  harbor  to  be  benefited ;  there  is  no  adjacent  commercial  interest 
to  be  gratified.  The  expenditure  of  this  money  as  designed  by  the 
committee  will  be  the  donation  of  $3,098,000  to  a  private  corporation. 
It  will  be  taking  that  sum,  which  the  engineers  of  this  Government 
have  recommended  be  not  expended,  and  expending  it  for  the  imme 
diate  benefit  of  individuals.  Prospectively,  it  may  be  said,  others  will 
derive  profit.  This  is  mere  speculation.  The  immediate  object,  the 
immediate  eiFect,  is  an  individual  advantage.  No  public  interest  is  to 
be  subserved,  but  the  money  is  given  because  it  is  asked  for  by  enter 
prising  citizens  engaged  in  the  development  of  a  large  commerce  over 
one  of  the  most  magnificent  wharves  in  the  world. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  373 

Mr.  President,  I  do  not  believe  that  an  appropriation  made  as 
designed  in  this  bill  can  be  justified.  I  think  that  its  consummation 
will  be  an  outrage  upon  the  public.  Suppose  that  the  distinguished 
gentlemen  who  favor  Santa  Monica  are  right  in  their  scientific  opin 
ions,  and  that  the  boards  and  other  trained  officers  of  the  Govern 
ment  are  in  error,  still  there  stands  a  controversy,  in  which  officials 
of  integrity  and  no  selfish  interest  are  ranged  upon  one  side,  and 
upon  the  other  stand  interested  parties  reaching  for  the  Treasury. 
Grant  that  the  latter  are  also  intelligent ;  grant  that  they  are  also  men 
ordinarily  free  from  bias;  they  are  nevertheless  personally  concerned, 
and  hence  not  reliable  judges. 

You  refuse  to  recommit  for  examination;  you  decline  to  subject 
it  to  candid  investigation,  but  it  is  proposed  to  boldly  overturn  and 
cast  aside  the  suggestions  of  those  to  whose  recommendation  we 
should  at  least  award  decent  consideration,  and  to  substitute  therefor 
the  conclusions  of  employees  of  Mr.  Huntington  and  to  enable  them 
to  place  at  his  feet  a  great  winning  made  from  the  Government  of  the 
United  States. 

If  the  advocates  of  Santa  Monica  believe  that  they  have  the 
meritorious  side,  then  let  them  face  a  commission  chosen  upon  impar 
tial  lines.  With  the  judgment  of  such  a  board  I  shall  be  content. 
Until  some  fair,  competent,  and  disinterested  man,  appointed  accord 
ing  to  law,  has  determined  that  this  appropriation  is  justifiable,  I  shall 
continue  to  oppose  it  and  to  raise  my  voice  against  it,  even  though  I 
stand  alone. 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not  offer  anything  further  at  present.  I 
have  endeavored  to  put  the  facts  very  fully  before  the  Senate,  citing 
various  opinions  and  conclusions  adverse  to  my  contention  as  well  as 
those  upon  which  I  have  relied.  There  are  other  Senators  who  desire 
to  speak  upon  the  matter,  and  I  care  to  say  no  more  now,  but  may 
later  have  occasion  to  detain  the  Senate  should  the  remarks  of  Sena 
tors  who  take  a  different  view  in  my  opinion  justify  further  comment. 

REPLY   TO    MR.    FRYE. 

Tuesday,  May  12,  1896. 

Mr.  WHITE.  Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  say  a  few  words  in 
response  to  the  statements  made  by  the  Senator  from  Maine  [Mr. 
FRYE]. 

In  the  first  place,  I  repudiate  the  intimation  that  there  is  any 
thing  of  the  so-called  sand-lot  agitation  to  be  found  upon  the  San 
Pedro  side  of  this  controversy.  I  wish  to  say  to  the  Senator  from 
Maine  that  the  people  of  California  are  as  law-abiding,  and,  with  due 
deference  to  him  and  his  constituents,  as  fully  competent  to  take  care 
of  their  own  affairs,  as  intelligent,  and  as  enlightened  and  progressive 
as  are  those  whom  he  represents. 

As  far  as  I  am  personally  concerned,  he  places  an  estimate  upon 
my  character  far  from  flattering-  when  he  assumes  that  I  can  be 
swerved  in  the  slightest  degree  from  the  pathway  of  my  duty  by  any 
ulterior  influence  or  unreasoning  excitement.  I  say  to  the  Senator 
from  Maine  that  however  independent  he  may  be  I  claim  similar  inde 
pendence.  I  deny  that  my  constituents  are  animated  by  any  motives 
not  creditable,  manly,  and  thoroughly  American.  Those  who  are 
immediately  interested  in  Los  Angeles  are  persons  of  discrimination, 


374  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

.fairness,  and  education.  Nor  is  it  true  that  I  said  one  word  in  the 
somewhat  lengthy  argument  made  by  me  here  that  can  be  called  undue 
criticism  or  uncalled-for  censure  of  Mr.  Huntington.  I  used  no 
imprecatory  phrase,  no  denunciatory  epithets.  I  am  confident  that  I 
have  acted  within  the  rules  of  politeness  and  duty.  True,  I  do  not 
and  did  not  regard  the  soil  upon  which  he  treads  as  sacred,  but  I 
trust  that  I  uttered  no  expression  in  reference  to  Mr.  Huntington 
which  was  not  becoming.  His  affairs  when  connected  with  legisla 
tion  are  to  that  extent  proper  matter  for  comment ;  so  also  of  his 
motives.  He  is  entitled  to  fair  treatment  and  nothing  more. 

As  my  colleague  [Mr.  PERKINS]  has  said,  the  people  of  our  State 
are  always  ready  to  do  justice  and  have  no  disposition  to  oppress. 
They  have  resented  certain  interferences  by  Mr.  Huntington  and  his 
associates  in  local  affairs,  and  have  demanded  immunity  in  politics 
from  corporate  domination.  The  issue  before  us,  however,  must  be 
solved  upon  other  lines.  I  have  endeavored  to  consider  it  on  its  mer 
its,  and  Mr.  Huntington's  personality  has  less  influence  upon  me  per 
haps  than  upon  some  who  might  be  identified. 

While  the  Senator  from  Maine  was  most  eloquent  and  lauda 
tory,  and,  I  believe,  extravagant  in  his  praises  of  Mr.  Huntington,  I 
do  not  complain.  It  is  a  matter  of  taste  for  which  I  am  not  responsi 
ble.  He  can  record  his  admiration,  if  it  pleases  him  so  to  do.  But  I 
do  complain  of  the  caustic  phrases  he  has  used  toward  those  who  sent 
me  here,  and  I  assert  he  was  not  justified  in  the  attacks  so  gratui 
tously  made.  The  Senator  from  Maine  says  very  truly  that  the  pro 
posed  outer  harbor  is  not  to  be  a  mere  local  improvement,  and  that 
the  entire  Senate  —  the  country  at  large  —  is  interested,  and  that  it 
makes  no  difference  what  the  people  of  Los  Angeles  want.  He  takes 
pains  to  tell  the  Senate  he  does  not  care  what  they  want,  a  proposition 
which  perhaps  it  was  not  necessary  for  him  to  announce  thus  form 
ally. 

It  is  true  that  the  nation  is  concerned  in  works  of  this  kind.  It 
is  true  that  the  views  of  the  Senators  from  California  are  not  conclu 
sive.  It  is  equally  true  that  I  might  invade  the  domain  of  my  friend 
the  Senator  from  Maine  and  pass  judgment  upon  public  works  in  the 
State  of  Maine,  and  pay  no  attention  to  his  recommendation.  This 
course  I  might  adopt  as  a  member  of  the  Committee  on  Commerce. 
Perhaps  it  would  be  my  duty  in  certain  contingencies  to  do  so.  I 
might  act  likewise  regarding  proposed  improvements  in  other  States. 
But  surely  I  would  not  follow  such  a  course  without  the  gravest 
cause.  It  is  the  habit  to  yield  somewhat  to  those  who  come  from  the 
locality  immediately  affected.  It  is  sometimes  the  case  that  Senators 
who  have  resided  for  a  long  time  in  a  particular  neighborhood  know 
more  about  it  than  a  gentleman,  however  able  he  may  be,  whose  eyes 
have  been  transitorily  cast  upon  the  troubled  waters. 

The  distinguished  Senator  from  Maine  stood  on  the  shore  at  San 
Pedro  and  he  viewed  the  sea  from  the  bluff.  On  Sunday  he  found 
himself  upon  the  cliffs  of  Santa  Monica,  and  looking  upon  the  bay 
was  charmed.  This  survey  thus  made  by  the  Senator  from  Maine 
settled  the  harbor  question,  engineers  to  the  contrary  notwithstand 
ing.  It  is  true  he  did  not  make  any  soundings.  Camille  Flammarion, 
the  celebrated  astronomer,  has  very  recently  written  that  it  is  now 
possible  to  ascertain  whether  the  oceans  in  Mars  are  deep  or  shallow. 
As  science  has  thus  progressed,  it  is  not  singular  that  the  Senator 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  375 

from  Maine  was  able  so  accurately  to  determine  the  true  inwardness 
of  the  harbor  question  during  his  brief  visit  to  the  Pacific. 

The  Senator  from  Maine  tells  us  that  he  does  not  profess  to  be 
scientific ;  that  he  does  not  claim  to  be  an  engineer,  familiar  with 
all  the  details  of  breakwater  construction,  yet  he  also  declares 
that  anyone  —  any  man  of  sense  who  gazes  urjon  the  map  which  he 
produced  must  read  there  a  recorded  judgment  in  favor  of  Santa 
Monica.  Perhaps  I  and  other  Senators  may  be  able  to  endure  in 
good  health  this  flattering  reference  to  our  restricted  and  constricted 
and  arrested  mental  development.  But  I  submit  that  the  evidence 
which  is  thus  alluded  to  as  conclusive  does  not  convince  and  should 
not  control  those  who  are  anxious  to  reach  a  correct  result.  There 
are  other  matters  of  far  greater  value  to  be  considered. 

There  are  various  propositions  that  can  not  very  well  be  under 
stood  by  a  mere  glance  at  the  map.  However,  it  is  true  that  this 
plat  is  useful.  It  shows  that  Santa  Monica  is  merely  an  open  road 
stead.  It  can  scarcely  be  called  a  bay.  A  casual  inspection  of  the 
Coast  and  Geodetic  chart  dispels  the  delusion  that  there  is  any  pro 
tection  at  Santa  Monica  from  the  dangerous  ocean  swells.  The 
Senator  from  Maine  several  times  declared  that  the  southeast  gales 
are  the  winds  which  are  generally  feared.  We  find  in  the  Craighill 
report,  under  the  head  of  "  Meteorological  conditions,"  the  following : 

The  prevailing  wind  on  the  California  coast  is  from  the  northwest,  nearly 
parallel  to  the  coast  line  north  of  Point  Concepcion,  which  is  in  latitude  34°  27' 
N.  At  this  point  the  trend  of  the  coast  changes  from  northwest  to  west. 
This  fact,  in  connection  with  the  bold  topography  of  the  shore,  causes  the  pre 
vailing  winds  along  the  southerly  coast  of  California  to  be  westerly.  This 
wind  never  becomes  more  than  a  moderate  gale.  It  never  produces  the  heaviest 
waves.  The  disturbance  of  the  water  due  to  it  is,  however,  always  an  incon 
venience  to  vessels  lying  at  a  wharf  exposed  to  its  action,  and  when  the  dis 
turbance  is  greatest  there  is  danger  to  vessels.  This  wind  prevails  on  the 
southern  coast  during  the  greater  part  of  the  year  with  the  intermission  of 
calms  in_the  autumn  and  winter.  In  the  last-named  season  occur  the  southerly 
offshore  winds,  which  produce  the  heaviest  waves  to  which  the  coast  line  is 
exposed. 

"  Southerly  offshore  winds." 

A  northeasterly  land  wind,  known  as  the  "  Santa  Ana,"  occasionally  blows 
from  the  dry  hot  plains  lying  to  the  eastward.  Its  duration  is  short  and  it  is 
severe,  but  having  no  fetch  over  the  sea,  it  raises  no  waves  near  shore.  It 
occurs  both  on  Santa  Monica  and  San  Pedro  bays. 

The  southeaster  comes  in  the  winter  and  spring  and  brings  rain.  The 
storm  first  manifests  itself  by  a  wind  from  the  southeast,  which  continues  for 
a  few  hours,  shifting  then  to  the  south  and  southwest.  The  storm  clears  up 
when  the  wind  gets  to  the  northwest.  In  these  storms  a  heavy  sea  is  devel 
oped,  which  breaks  upon  the  coast  line  in  waves  of  great  magnitude.  These 
waves  come  from  the  south  and  southwest.  The  waves  produced  by  the  south 
east  wind  are  short,  designated  by  the  sailors  as  choppy.  The  south  and  south 
west  seas,  on  the  other  hand,  are  long  and  heavy.  A  vessel  at  anchor  under 
this  exposure  must,  under  these  circumstances,  get  to  sea,  with  the  possibility 
of  otherwise  going  ashore.  It  is  the  heave  of  the  sea  rather  than  the  wind, 
although  the  latter  alone  is  sufficiently  dangerous,  that  makes  the  strongest 
ground  tackle  at  times  of  no  avail. 

So  the  alleged  frightful  southeast  gales  amount  to  little,  except 
in  so  far  as  they  are  ultimately  the  cause  of  the  swells  which  proceed 
from  the  south  and  southwest.  The  southeast  wind  itself  directly 
develops  no  waves  save  the  short  choppy  waves  just  referred  to,  and 
the  testimony,  so  far  from  sustaining  the  Senator  from  Maine,  shows 
that  it  is  the  heave  of  the  sea  proceeding  from  the  south  and  south- 


376  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

west  which  is  to  be  remedied  or  counteracted.  These  exposures  are 
absolutely  protected  by  the  harbor  designed  at  San  Pedro. 

The  Senate  will  notice  the  protection  afforded  San  Pedro  by 
Catalina  Island,  which  is  17^  miles  in  length.  The  testimony  is 
(and  we  scarcely  need  evidence  to  sustain  that  view)  that  this  island 
tends  to  protect  San  Pedro  Harbor.  As  I  said  in  my  opening  argu 
ment,  the  calmest  water  anywhere  in  that  ocean  is  on  the  land  side  or 
lee  of  Catalina,  and  the  island  being,  as  I  have  stated,  iyl/2  miles  in 
length,  naturally  affects  the  water  even  to  San  Pedro.  Santa  Monica 
is  not  thus  favorably  influenced  by  Catalina.  The  presence  of  enor 
mous  waves  at  San  Pedro  is  the  creation  of  the  imagination  of  my 
friend  the  Senator  from  Maine.  No  one  who  has  resided  there  and 
who  is  familiar  with  that  coast  has  ever  seen  these  alarming  manifes 
tations. 

The  San  Ped.ro  bluffs  afford  proof  that  there  are  no  such  dan 
gerous  storms  as  those  to  which  our  attention  has  been  called.  The 
bluff  shows  no  evidence  of  the  battering  to  which  we  are  told  it  has 
been  subjected.  It  is  a  silent  witness  in  refutation  of  the  charge. 

Said  the  Craighill  board: 

A  strong  evidence  of  the  weakness  of  the  destructive  action  of  the  southeast 
storms  is  seen  in  the  very  slow  wearing  away  of  the  sandy  cliffs  and  of  the 
bluffs  at  San  Pedro ;  nor  could  the  exposed  wharves  be  maintained  in  this  region 
if  the  destructive  action  of  the  storms  was  great. 

I  have  heretofore  inquired  why  the  southeast  storms  do  not  affect 
the  inner  harbor.  Here  [indicating]  we  find  a  narrow  neck  called 
Rattlesnake  Island.  The  surface  is  but  little  above  the  sea,  and  if 
the  winds  blow  with  the  force  described,  surely  the  shipping  in  the 
inner  harbor  would  be  injured.  Nobody  has  ever  heard  of  ships 
being  affected  at  all  in  the  inner  harbor  by  the  wind.  No  disturb 
ance  of  that  sort  has  ever  been  witnessed. 

Again,  the  Senator  from  Maine  stated  that  neither  the  first  nor 
second  board  of  engineers  had  any  knowledge  with  reference  to  the 
westerly  swells.  The  Senator  is  obviously  mistaken.  In  the  first 
report  Colonel  Mendell  says: 

San  Pedro  Bay  is  sheltered  from  the  westerly  winds  by  Point  Firmin.  It 
is  open  to  the  winds  and  seas  from  the  southwest  and  to  the  prevailing  south 
west  swell  above  noted,  over  an  angle  of  60°  to  the  westward  of  Catalina  Island. 

It  will  be  observed  that  Colonel  Mendell  speaks  of  the  southwest 
swell,  and  one  of  the  engineers,  Colonel  Hains,  testified  about  it  at 
the  recent  hearing.  He  said  the  same  peculiarity  is  mentioned  in  the 
report  of  Colonel  Craighill,  already  cited. 

Colonel  HAINS.  The  breakwater  is  to  be  carried  around  in  such  a  direction 
that  that  exposure  does  not  amount  to  much.  In  the  first  place,  the  southeast 
gales  are  of  very  short  duration.  They  do  not  last  long.  The  wind  starts  in 
from  the  southeast,  but  the  sea  comes  from  the  southwest.  The  sea  is  what 
causes  the  trouble,  not  the  wind;  and  the  sea  comes  from  the  southwest. 

Senator  NELSON.     It  can  not  come  from  the  southeast? 

Colonel  HAINS.  Some  seas  come  from  the  southeast;  but  the  heaviest 
swells  come  from  the  southwest,  even  if  the  wind  is  blowing  from  the  south 
east.  Then  the  wind  generally  shifts  round  to  the  northward. 

The  reason  for  the  curved  construction  of  the  San  Pedro  break 
water  is  because  it  is  designed  to  resist  the  westerly  swells.  While 
it  is  a  fact  that  out  as  far  as  7  miles  from  Point  Firmin  in  the  direc 
tion  of  Catalina  Island  there  is  to  be  found  water  not  over  15  fathoms 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  377 

deep ;  while  it  is  true  also  that  3  miles  in  a  westerly  direction  there  is 
water  of  very  moderate  depth,  nevertheless  if  it  be  conceded  that  the 
depth  westerly  from  Point  Firmin  is  as  claimed  by  Santa  Monica 
advocates,  still  no  point  is  made  against  San  Pedro,  for  the  break 
water  will  absolutely  intercept  this  swell. 

The  very  object  of  its  construction  is  to  cut  off  these  waves,  and 
that  the  section  proposed  is  well  designed  there  is  now  no  question. 
On  the  other  hand,  when  we  come  to  Santa  Monica  Bay  we  have 
absolutely  nothing  to  interfere  with  the  southwesterly  swells.  The 
surf  is  not  serious  or  the  sea  remarkably  rough  anywhere  along  the 
coast  of  Southern  California.  At  Hueneme,  at  Newport  Landing, 
and  at  other  places  referred  to  by  my  colleague  there  are  wharves 
extending  directly  into  the  ocean.  In  Monterey  Bay  there  are 
wharves  built  seaward,  and  they  stand.  Senators  not  familiar  with 
these  uncommon  conditions  can  not  well  appreciate  the  difference 
between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  in  this  regard.  The  success  of  the 
Southern  Pacific  wharf  is  by  no  means  phenomenal. 

At  Redondo,  for  instance,  shown  on  the  map,  there  is  an  excel 
lent  wharf  in  full  operation.  The  water  is  extremely  deep,  and  the 
pier  is  consequently  short.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  while  the  water 
is  deeper  near  Redondo  than  at  many  other  places  on  the  bay,  no 
great  difference  in  the  westerly  swells  is  observable.  Before  Mr. 
Huntington  made  his  development  above  Santa  Monica  most  of  the 
Los  Angeles  coast  business  coming  from  San  Francisco  was  trans 
acted  at  Redondo  because  vessels  were  able  to  come  up  to  a  wharf  and 
discharge  their  cargoes.  The  Pacific  Coast  steamship  has  been  in  the 
habit  of  calling  at  Redondo,  and  it  has  been  rarely  found  difficult 
to  discharge  at  that  wharf.  These  illustrations  suffice  to  show  the 
availability  of  the  Southern  California  coast  for  wharf  construction. 
A  glance  at  the  map  discloses  a  number  of  shipping  points  similar  to 
those  mentioned. 

The  Senator  from  Maine  alluded  several  times  to  Mr.  Hunting- 
ton's  abandonment  of  Wilmington  Harbor.  He  never  abandoned 
Wilmington  Harbor.  The  Southern  Pacific  commenced  to  build  a 
wharf  near  Point  Firmin;  Mr.  Hood  had  charge  of  it.  Mr.  Hood 
was  the  same  skilled  engineer  then  that  he  is  now,  and  he  has  been 
for  a  long  time  at  the  head  of  the  engineering  department  of  the  rail 
road  company.  He  was  their  chief  engineer  long  before  the  Santa 
Monica  wharf  was  built,  and  he  was  thoroughly  familiar  with  San 
Pedro  when  he  commenced  the  pier  near  Point  Firmin. 

About  the  time  that  Mr.  Huntington  commenced  work  at  Port  Los 
Angeles  the  Terminal  Railroad  was  built  to  Rattlesnake  Island  and 
commenced  the  transaction  of  business  there.  Redondo  was  doing, 
as  I  have  said,  the  major  part  of  the  northerly  business,  taking  most 
of  it  from  Wilmington  because  of  its  proximity  to  San  Francisco. 
So  Mr.  Huntington  built  his  pier,  not  because  of  any  special  harbor 
advantages,  but  to  meet  the  competition  referred  to.  He  selected  a 
point  as  far  up  as  it  was  possible  to  go.  The  beach  narrows  proceed 
ing  towards  Poine  Dume  and  Mr.  Huntington  has  so  arranged  mat 
ters  that  it  is  practically  impossible  to  pass  him. 

I  have  shown  a  photograph  of  the  approach  to  Mr.  Hunting- 
ton's  wharf.  It  will  be  observed  that  it  is  at  the  foot  of  a  bluff  about 
200  feet  high.  I  exhibit  the  picture  to  the  Senate.  The  isolation  of 
the  situation  is  clear.  A  study  of  the  photographs  filed  makes  com- 


378  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

ment  unnecessary.  Mr.  Hunting-ton  controls  the  land  upon  this  bluff, 
and  the  ownership  extends  to  the  sea  and  for  some  2000  feet  along 
shore. 

I  do  not  deem  the  fact  that  any  particular  person  owns  this  land 
as  of  controlling  importance,  but  I  desire  the  facts  in  the  matter  to  be 
made  of  record. 

I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  accessibility 
proposition.  The  Senator  from  Maine  says  that  he  does  not  know 
why  the  Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa  Fe  Railroad  Company  people 
are  opposed  to  the  Port  Los  Angeles  breakwater.  If  the  conditions 
were  as  the  Senator  from  Maine  describes  them,  of  course  the  Santa 
Fe  would  not  be  opposed  to  it.  If  the  managers  of  that  corporation 
were  not  fearful  of  a  monopoly  they  would  naturally  aid  this  appro 
priation.  They  want  to  reach  tide  water.  They  are  already  here 
[indicating]  at  Redondo  Beach,  and  are  not  far,  it  will  be  observed, 
from  San  Pedro.  Indeed,  I  have  heard  that  they  have  some  arrange 
ment  by  which  they  pass  over  the  Terminal  line.  But  that  is  unim 
portant,  and  my  knowledge  regarding  it  is  limited. 

The  Senator  from  Maine  says  that  ten  or  twelve  tracks  can  be 
constructed  along  the  seashore  at  Santa  Monica.  But  what  will 
become  of  that  town?  Santa  Monica  is  one  of  the  most  charming 
seaside  resorts  of  which  I  have  any  knowledge.  It  is  susceptible  of 
great  development  and  adornment.  Its  beauties  will  fade  if  its  beach 
is  devoted  to  railroads  and  locomotives.  I  can  not  believe  that  the 
trustees  who  control  the  subject  will  ever  allow  the  intrusion  of  more 
railroads  along  the  water  front.  Can  boys  and  girls,  women  and 
children,  nurses  and  babies  safely  be  trusted  upon  a  shore  thus  devoted 
to  commercial  uses?  It  is  not  to  be  anticipated  that  the  members  of 
the  boards  of  trustees  of  Santa  Monica  will  ever  permit  the  place  to 
be  ruined. 

But  if  further  destruction  of  the  beach  is  forbidden,  how  can 
competing  railroads  reach  the  protected  harbor?  It  may  be  said  that 
Santa  Monica  Canyon  can  be  utilized  for  approach.  But  the  difficul 
ties  of  this  plan  are  many.  The  route  is  circuitous,  the  grade  severe ; 
many  private  interests  must  be  condemned.  I  believe  that  no  com 
peting  railroad  will  construct  a  wharf  there  for  years,  and  the  erec 
tion  of  piers  by  parties  of  moderate  means  is  impossible.  It  is  not  a 
matter  of  surprise  to  me  that  so  much  opposition  is  manifested  to  Mr. 
Huntington's  plan  by  those  who  are  actuated  by  business  considera 
tions  rather  than  by  sentiment. 

The  Senator  from  Maine  mentions  that  there  has  never  been  the 
slightest  trouble  in  maintaining  the  wharf  which  Mr.  Huntington  has 
built  at  Santa  Monica.  I  have  already  observed  that  there  is  nothing 
remarkable  in  this.  I  do  not  doubt  that  this  situation  will  be  main 
tained  for  many  years. 

Occasionally  landing  will  be  difficult.  For  instance,  last  March 
the  British  ship  Dunboyne  was  forced  to  leave  the  wharf  because  of 
an  uncommon  swell.  She  was  towed  away  by  the  Pacific  Coast 
Steamship  Company's  vessel  Corona.  But  under  all  ordinary  condi 
tions  I  concede  that  any  wharf  on  the  Southern  California  coast  will 
fairly  accommodate  shipping.  Santa  Monica  has  no  monopoly  in 
that  respect. 

The  Senator  from  Maine  made  a.  very  able  defense  of  Mr.  Cor- 
thell.  I  do  not  complain  that  Mr.  Corthell  was  employed  by  Mr. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  379 

Huntington.  I  never  have  objected  to  that,  but  I  do  resent  his  attempt 
to  pose  as  an  official  employed  to  give  a  disinterested  opinion.  He 
actually  tells  us  in  the  letter  which  he  addressed  to  the  minority  of 
the  Commerce  Committee  that  he  acted  in  an  official  capacity.  I  read 
his  language  during  this  debate.  What  official  authority  had  Mr. 
Corthell  to  make  this  examination?  He  says  he  was  first  spoken  to 
by  Mr.  Huntington,  and  the  Senator  from  Maine,  who  wanted,  of 
course,  an  impartial  report,  sought  the  services  of  a  man  already 
spoken  to  by  Mr.  Huntington,  and  who  had  business  connections 
with  the  latter,  to  make  the  examination. 

Mr.  Huntington  was  undoubtedly  at  liberty  to  employ  Corthell, 
but  the  fact  of  such  employment  destroyed  Corthell 's  disinterestedness. 
Could  Corthell  be  bribed  by  the  mere  payment  of  a  board  bill  ?  No 
one  ever  charged  that  he  \vas  bribed  by  the  payment  of  a  board  bill 
or  bribed  in  any  other  way ;  but  I  have  asserted,  and  do  say,  that  no 
hired  expert,  no  man  who  is  engaged  to  give  an  opinion  by  a  party 
to  a  controversy,  is  as  reliable  a  witness  as  a  public  officer  who  has 
nothing  but  his  honor  and  reputation  in  issue.  Mr.  Corthell  was 
employed  for  what?  To  assist  Mr.  Huntington  in  getting  an  appro 
priation  for  Santa  Monica,  a  work  in  which  he  has  been  engaged 
ever  since  the  Senator  from  Maine  asked  his  opinion.  Mr.  Corthell, 
therefore,  is  an  opinion  witness  testifying  for  his  employer. 

The  very  best  men  —  persons  of  finest  standing  —  have  been 
found  unequal  to  the  task  of  impartiality  under  such  conditions.  Mr. 
Corthell  is  no  exception.  He  is  as  intensely  partisan  as  anyone  can 
be.  He  is  a  loyal  and  warm  advocate  of  Mr.  Huntington,  with  whom 
he  has  long  been  associated,  and  whose  interests  he  is  seeking  to  con 
serve. 

Certainly  the  Senator  from  Maine  will  not  claim  that  Mr.  Cor- 
thell's  opinions  as  an  employee  of  Mr.  Huntington  are  to  be  treated 
as  disinterested  and  conclusive.  Mr.  Corthell  is  greatly  interested. 
His  correspondence  with  Senators,  his  anxiety  to  mix  in  its  discus 
sion,  is  demonstrative  of  his  feeling.  When  the  Senator  from  Maine 
and  others  connected  with  the  river  and  harbor  bills  sent  for  Mr. 
Corthell  and  spoke  to  him  about  making  this  investigation  in  a  State 
represented  by  other  Senators,  it  was  a  little  singular,  it  seems  to  me, 
that  not  a  word  was  said  to  the  officers  entitled  to  speak  for  that 
State.  Would  it  not  be  regarded  as  a  little  peculiar  if  I,  as  a  mem 
ber  of  the  Commerce  Committee,  were  to  delegate  some  one  to  go  to 
Maine  to  pass  upon  river  and  harbor  matters  there  without  consulting 
him  at  all?  The  Senator  from  Maine  has  said  that  he  wishes  to  be 
courteous  to  everybody.  Does  he  think  this  action  to  be  the  quintes 
sence  of  courtesy? 

The  Senator  from  Maine  says  he  is  always  anxious  to  yield  to 
Senators  upon  the  committee.  One  of  the  many  characteristics  of 
the  Senator  from  Maine  that  I  admire  is  his  firmness,  his  positive- 
ness,  and  the  fact  that,  when  he  has  an  opinion,  he  is  not  afraid  to 
express  it,  and  to  do  so  forcibly,  and  he  generally  adheres  to  his  view. 
Does  not  each  member  of  the  Committee  on  Commerce  know  that  if 
there  ever  was  a  determined  chairman  who  not  only  wishes  to  have 
his  own  way,  but  nearly  always  does  have  it,  it  is  the  Senator  from 
Maine?  Talk  about  concessions!  I  have  never  known  a  man  in  my 
life  to  make  fewer  concessions  than  my  friend  the  chairman  of  the 
Commerce  Committee. 


380  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  FRYE.     I  am  always  right.     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  WHITE.  Well,  you  think  you  are,  and  you  are  happy.  I 
believe  the  Senator  from  Maine  believes  that  he  is  always  right;  but 
one  who  credits  himself  absolutely  is  frequently  in  error.  I  hope 
the  Senator  from  Maine  will  never  again  state  in  the  presence  of 
members  of  his  committee  that  he  is  of  such  yielding  and  plastic 
temperament,  of  such  conciliatory  and  conceding  disposition.  The 
Senator  describes  the  formation  of  his  opinion  on  this  issue.  In  1893, 
in  the  month  of  April,  the  Senator  from  Maine  asserted  upon  this 
floor  that  his  mind  was  fully  made  up.  Why  he  desired  any  further 
investigation  I  do  not  know.  Whether  the  Senator  from  Maine  has 
ever  in  the  course  of  his  life  changed  an  opinion  formed  by  him  delib 
erately  I  am  unable  to  state.  He  may  have  done  so  in  his  younger 
days,  but  not  in  connection  with  his  duties  upon  the  Commerce  Com 
mittee.  His  judgment  is  irrevocable. 

The  Senator  from  Maine,  while  disclaiming  engineering  attain 
ments,  seems  to  think  that  I  was  reflecting  upon  him  in  some  way 
when  I  spoke  of  him  as  a  navigator.  I  did  think  that  the  Senator 
from  Maine  was  possessed  of  much  nautical  knowledge;  but  if  I  was 
in  error  I  will  withdraw  the  remark.  [Laughter.]  But  while  the 
Senator  from  Maine  disclaims  familiarity  with  technical  matters  he 
informs  us  that  anyone  can  see  the  conclusive  merits  of  his  argument 
by  a  mere  glance  at  his  map.  Those  of  the  most  ordinary  intellectual 
development  must  see  that  he  is  right.  This  is  his  faith,  and  he  does 
not  hesitate  to  set  up  his  non-professional  judgment  against  those 
who  have  been  employed  by  the  Government  to  pass  upon  this  subject. 
He  not  only  relies  upon  himself  against  skilled  authority,  but  he  tells 
us  that  as  there  is  one  chance  in  ten  of  a  decision  in  favor  of  San 
Pedro  he  will  vote  against  the  amendment  which  I  offer.  This  is 
more  conciliation. 

Mr.  President,  the  amendment  which  I  have  advocated  involves 
the  appointing  of  a  commission  of  admittedly  unbiased  and  impartial 
men  to  determine  between  these  two  locations  —  San  Pedro  and  Santa 
Monica.  What  is  the  objection  to  this?  The  Senator  from  Maine 
says  that  possibly  there  might  be  a  decision  for  San  Pedro  —  only  one 
chance  out  of  ten,  he  declares.  But  this  is  quite  enough.  No  impar 
tial  experts  who  choose  San  Pedro  can,  according  to  his  view,  be  relied 
on.  No  impartial  or  other  board  for  him.  What  does  he  want?  He 
demands  the  power  to  personally  solve  this  dispute  his  own  way. 

The  Senator  from  Maine  says  that  General  Craighill  stated  that 
he  was  a  fortifications  engineer.  So  he  did ;  and  so  he  is ;  but  the 
engineers  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States  have  some  riparian 
knowledge,  I  presume.  They  have  general  engineering  skill.  Their 
attainments  are  not  confined  to  providing  methods  of  defense.  They 
have  all  had  vast  practical  experience  as  well  as  thorough  education 
in  all  branches  of  engineering  science.  It  has  been  said  that  the 
reports  of  the  board  of  engineers  as  to  San  Pedro  show  that  the  main 
point  considered  was  as  to  the  availability  of  the  harbor  site  for 
defense.  This  is  inaccurate.  The  reports  of  these  boards  are  here 
and  show  that  but  little  space  was  devoted  to  mere  fortification  or 
defensive  questions.  A  more  intimate  knowledge  of  the  contents  of 
these  documents  would  prove  beneficial. 

Look  at  these  seven  volumes  on  my  desk,  compiled  in  the  War 
Department  and  sent  here  for  the  study  and  enlightenment  of  myself. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  381 

the  Senator  from  Maine,  and  other  Senators.  What  do  we  find? 
Only  references  to  fortification  matters?  By  no  means.  We  find 
the  advice  and  recommendation  all  through  these  books  of  the  Army 
engineers  concerning  riparian  improvements.  The  great  rivers,  over 
which  pass  hundreds  and  thousands  and  millions  of  tons  of  commerce, 
are  kept  in  proper  condition  under  their  management  and  control. 
The  harbors  needing  improvement  are  committed  to  their  care,  not 
merely  to  carry  out  a  project  elsewhere  devised,  but  their  advice  is 
solicited  and  obtained  and  acted  upon  with  reference  to  the  character 
of  the  improvements  to  be  made.  They  furnish  projects  at  the  insti 
gation  of  Congress.  Grant  that  they  are  sometimes  mistaken.  Every 
body  is  sometimes  mistaken,  except  my  friend  from  Maine,  and  we 
have  his  authority  that  he  is  never  wrong.  We  concede  that  engi 
neers  are  human  —  they  are  fallible  —  but  if  we  have  doubts  as  to  the 
correctness  of  a  conclusion  which  they  have  reached,  let  us  investigate 
in  an  orderly  way  and  obtain  proper  indorsement  and  authorization 
somewhere  before  we  pledge  ourselves  to  a  contrary  policy.  If  the 
eight  engineers  whose  reports  are  being  discussed  are  not  all  wrong 
this  appropriation  should  not  be  made. 

I  have  been  criticised  because  I  remarked  that  the  Santa  Monica 
site  had  been  condemned.  I  would  have  been  strictly  accurate  had  I 
said  that  the  engineers  recommended  San  Pedro  as  the  preferable 
place,  and  alluded  to  Santa  Monica  as  comparatively  undesirable. 
But  this  is  a  decision  against  Santa  Monica.  It  is  a  virtual  rejection 
of  that  site.  It  is  true  that  many  competent  officers  hold  that  the 
Santa  Monica  breakwater  can  be  successfully  constructed.  Major 
Raymond  does  not  think  so,  and  I  believe  he  has  had  more  experience 
in  the  matter  of  breakwater  building  than  anyone  in  the  United  States. 
He  thinks  —  and  his  views  seem  to  me  rational  —  that  the  westerly 
waves  will  pass  in  behind  the  artificial  protection.  The  construction 
parallel  to  the  rectilinear  shore  does  not  appeal  to  his  experience  or 
mathematical  investigation. 

But,  at  all  events,  this  disputation  merely  amounts  to  this,  that  my 
friend  from  Maine,  the  majority  of  the  committee,  and  other  intelli 
gent,  non-professional  gentlemen,  think  that  the  engineers  have  made 
a  mistake,  and  they  propose  not  to  let  any  contingent  contract,  not  to 
$o  as  Congress  did  in  the  case  of  the  Brunswick  Harbor,  or  in  the 
Eads  jetty  matter  —  which,  by  the  way,  was  approved  by  numerous 
members  of  the  Engineer  Corps  —  no  success  no  pay  —  but  we  pro 
pose  to  appropriate  flat  $3,098,000  against  the  recommendation  of  our 
own  officers,  and  in  compliance  with  Mr.  Huntingdon's  unapproved 
solicitation.  It  is  to  that  style  of  business  that  I  object ;  and  it  is  to 
the  candid  judgment  of  this  Senate  that  I  appeal.  Senators,  are  you 
willing  to  make  this  appropriation  without  any  recommendation,  and 
are  you  ready  to  vote  down  the  proposition  that  there  must  be  some 
approval  by  some  competent  official  authority  ?  Can  we  afford  to  con 
tribute  governmental  funds  without  any  sanction  or  excuse? 

I  demand  the  judgment  of  a  competent  board.  I  have  entire 
confidence  in  the  Army  Corps  and  in  their  opinions.  Others  differ 
from  me.  I  am  not  unreasonable ;  but  I  insist  that,  even  if  Senators 
believe  that  developments  lately  transpiring  indicate  the  preferable 
character  of  Santa  Monica,  still  it  is  essential  that  we  be  accorded  the 
favorable  opinion  of  an  able,  qualified,  and  unprejudiced  board  sug 
gesting  the  propriety  of  our  action.  Can  you  afford  to  vote  down 
such  a  proposition? 


382  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

I  have  repeatedly  asserted  that  I  announced  no  dogmatic  rule  for 
the  formation  of  such  a  commission.  I  have  no  friends  in  this  case 
to  serve,  no  enemies  to  punish,  but  a  duty  I  have  to  discharge.  I 
want  no  stuffed  commission,  no  prejudiced  institution,  nobody  biased 
in  any  way  whatever.  I  have  submitted  time  and  again  to  the 
majority  of  the  committee  the  proposition  that  they  should  suggest 
some  method  of  constructing  an  impartial  board,  and  I  have  said  that 
I  would  acquiesce,  and  yet  that  proposal  has  been  refused,  without 
reason  assigned.  I  resubmit  my  proposal.  I  plainly  suggest  that 
there  is  no  excuse,  even  tolerably  plausible,  against  my  tender. 

My  friend  from  Maine  says  that  if  there  is  to  be  an  outer  harbor 
at  San  Pedro  then  the  inner  harbor  should  not  be  improved.  From 
this  view  I  utterly  dissent.  The  inner  harbor  of  San  Pedro  is  most 
valuable,  even  as  it  is.  Wharves  line  the  harbor  frontage  at  that 
point  —  not  piers  costing  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars,  but 
wharves  owned  by  moderate  mercantile  interests  in  Los  Angeles  — 
over  which  extensive  commerce  is  transacted.  This  is  done  though 
only  14  feet  at  low  tide  is  found  upon  the  bar.  When  the  Benyaurd 
project,  adopted  in  this  bill,  shall  have  proved  successful  there  will  be 
1 8  feet  at  low  tide  within  that  harbor  and  hundreds  of  wharves  will 
demonstrate  the  reasonableness  of  the  project  which  the  Engineer 
Corps  has  indorsed.  The  inner  harbor  is  confined  by  low  land.  The 
bluff  rises  rather  abruptly  farther  on  at  San  Pedro.  The  facilities  for 
wharves  and  docks  are  marked,  and  the  improvement  of  the  so-called 
inner  harbor  has  not  only  proven  successful  as  far  as  it  has  gone,  but 
few  commercial  projects  offer  more  striking  possibilities. 

I  have  never  known  or  heard  of  a  citizen  of  Los  Angeles  opposed 
to  the  improvement  of  the  inner  harbor.  The  entire  community 
appreciates  its  advantages  and  merits. 

I  have  learned  many  things  about  the  people  of  my  home.  Not 
withstanding  my  long  residence  there  I  have  been  informed  that  the 
lawfully  elected  Representatives  of  that  section  are  in  the  dark.  My 
friend  from  Maine  says  that  the  present  Congressman  from  that  dis 
trict  was  instructed  when  first  nominated  to  support  San  Pedro,  and 
that  now  he  is  renominated  by  a  convention  which  passed  a  resolution 
in  favor  of  Santa  Monica. 

The  Congressional  district  convention  —  Republican,  I  am  glad 
to  say  —  to  which  allusion  is  made,  passed  a  resolution  in  favor  of  all 
appropriations.  In  other  words,  they  said,  "  We  will  take  all  the 
money  you  will  give  us."  A  willingness  to  absorb,  not  dependent 
upon  a  choice  of  places.  A  sentiment  favoring  donations  common  to 
all  enterprising  communities. 

The  Republican  convention  in  California  lately  assembled  was 
a  very  curious  affair.  I  do  not  intend  to  discuss  politics,  but  I  must 
say  that  that  body  passed  a  resolution  denouncing1  the  Pacific  Railroad 
funding  bill  as  a  fraud  and  an  outrage,  and  at  the  same  time  put  on 
the  electoral  ticket  the  vice-president  of  the  railroad  company  offend 
ing —  a  very  estimable  gentleman.  The  only  member  of  the  Califor 
nia  Congressional  delegation  who  indorsed  the  funding  bill,  and  who, 
by  the  way,  is  an  able  member  of  the  House  Committee  on  Pacific 
Railroads,  was  elected  a  delegate  to  the  national  Republican  conven 
tion  upon  a  platform  declaring  not  only  against  the  funding  bill,  but 
also  in  favor  of  William  McKinley  and  free  and  unlimited  coinage  at 
16  to  T.  [Laughter.]  If  there  is  any  subject  not  covered  on  both 
sides  by  my  Republican  local  brethren,  if  my  friends  of  the  opposition 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  383 

have  not  agreed  to  all  things  that  conflict,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  interpret 
their  singular  platform.  But  the  general  sweeping  resolution  men 
tioned  by  the  Senator  from  Maine  merely  amounts  to  an  acceptance 
of  all  appropriations  which  we  may  make.  Very  few  Republican 
conventions  (I  mean  no  offense)  will  decline  to  assimilate  that  which 
they  can  get.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  ALLEN.  Did  that  convention  make  any  specific  reference 
to  Santa  Monica? 

Mr.  WHITE.  No;  but  in  the  county  of  Los  Angeles,  where 
there  are  six  assembly  districts,  two  only  of  such  districts  acted  upon 
the  subject  in  recent  Republican  conventions  and  these  passed  resolu 
tions  in  favor  of  San  Pedro.  So  you  have  it.  The  immediate  locality 
favors  San  Pedro.  The  Republican  State  convention  indorsed  the 
railroad  as  far  as  nominees  were  concerned,  advocated  all  appropria 
tions,  McKinley,  and  free  coinage,  and  opposed  Democracy,  monopoly, 
and  the  funding  bill. 

I  am  not  responsible,  I  am  glad  to  say,  for  the  proceedings  of  the 
late  Republican  convention  held  in  California.  The  Republican  dele 
gation  being  absent  from  that  State,  the  convention  evidently  escaped 
from  proper  or  consistent  management.  As  far  as  the  sentiment  of 
the  people  of  Los  Angeles  is  concerned,  I  know  whereof  I  speak  when 
I  say  that  their  judgment  is  overwhelmingly  for  San  Pedro.  There 
are  many,  as  I  have  admitted,  who  prefer  to  take  Santa  Monica  rather 
than  lose  the  appropriation ;  but,  be  it  said  to  the  credit  of  Los  Angeles 
County,  and  let  it  be  said  to  the  credit  of  the  workingmen  of  that 
prosperous  section,  and  to  the  honor  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  and 
the  Board  of  Trade,  that  they  have  all  elected  to  sacrifice  a  mere  appro 
priation  rather  than  to  lose  independence.  The  leaders  and  officials  of 
almost  all  the  labor  organizations  of  Los  Angeles  have  manfully  and 
grandly  supported  the  right  in  this  struggle.  They  have  emphatically 
declined  to  submit  to  blandishments  and  have  approved  of  the  course 
of  my  colleague  and  myself. 

I  feel  that  we  should  reach  a  vote  upon  this  proposition  at  once, 
and  I  concur  that  the  bill  should  go  to  conference  immediately.  I 
submit  the  issue  to  your  candid  judgment.  Your  opinion  can  not  be 
coerced  or  controlled.  You  know  this  case  now.  Its  various  phases 
have  been  fully  examined.  I  have  sought  to  impress  the  facts  upon 
you,  content  to  rest  my  claims  upon  justice  and  truth. 

The  struggle  which  I  have  made  here  may  seem  stubborn  to 
some,  but  it  is  maintained  in  the  consciousness  and  belief  that  I  am 
acting  for  the  public  interest.  No  demagogical  appeal  —  notwith 
standing  intimations  to  the  contrary  —  has  influenced  or  ever  will  influ 
ence  me.  I  have  been  as  able  as  the  Senator  from  Maine  to  maintain 
myself  in  my  conservative  methods  without  condescending  to  belittle- 
ment.  I  experience  natural  pride  in  my  presence  here,  but  I  would 
willingly  sacrifice  that  honor  rather  than  yield  my  maturely  formed 
judgment  to  any  senseless  clamor,  to  threats  or  flattery,  to  condemna 
tion  or  applause,  and  I  might  say,  Mr.  President,  that  I  would  rather 
be  a  lawyer  whose  word  was  as  good  as  the  rich  man's  bond,  and 
whose  opinion  upon  an  intricate  question  of  judicial  science  was  val 
ued  by  the  master  minds  of  my  profession,  than  to  hold  in  my  hand 
all  the  honors  that  ever  were  won  by  appeals  to  thei  passions  or  preju 
dices  of  men.  [Applause  in  the  galleries.] 


384  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

Mr.  FRYE.  Mr.  President,  the  Senator  from  California  has 
painted  a  picture  of  me  which  I  do  not  believe  any  Senator  who  has 
been  associated  with  me  for  quite  a  number  of  years  will  recognize. 
I  think  I  do  yield  very  frequently,  and  to  a  certain  extent  I  am  going 
to  yield  now,  notwithstanding  the  charge  which  has  been  made  against 
me  —  the  navigator  of  the  committee.  I  objected  very  seriously  to 
the  amendment  offered  by  the  Senator  from  California.  It  contained 
an  Army  engineer  as  one  of  the  commission.  I  am  not  saying  any 
thing  against  the  Army  engineers,  but  in  a  question  of  this  kind,  in 
which  there  has  been  so  much  discussion  and  friction,  to  put  on  that 
commission  an  Army  engineer,  when  his  chief  is  the  head  of  the  Engi 
neer  Department,  and  was  the  head  of  one  of  the  boards  which  made 
report  to  Congress  and  has  been  under  consideration,  I  do  say  that  it 
is  packing,  in  all  human  probability,  the  foreman  of  that  jury,  for  he 
would  be  the  foreman,  and  I  should  not  be  content  with  nor  would  1 
risk  a  commission  of  that  kind.  It  was  on  that  account  that  I  said 
there  might  be  one  chance  in  ten  of  a  commission  so  constituted 
reporting  in  favor  of  San  Pedro. 

The  Senator  has  offered  an  amendment  to  strike  out  the  item 
which  the  committee  had  inserted  in  the  bill,  and  to  insert  his  amend 
ment.  It  is  my  right,  before  that  question  is  taken,  to  perfect,  so  far 
as  I  may,  the  amendment  which  the  committee  itself  reported,  and  I 
am  going  to  propose  a  commission  which,  under  the  statement  of  the 
Senator  made  within  the  last  fifteen  minutes,  I  fail  to  see  how  even 
he  can  refuse  to  accept. 

In  order  that  the  Senate  may  understand  the  amendment  I  now 
propose,  I  will  read  the  first  two  lines  of  the  amendment  reported  by 
the  committee,  which  read  in  this  way: 

For  a  deep-water  harbor  at  Port  Los  Angeles,  in  Santa  Monica  Bay,  Cali 
fornia. 

After  the  word  "  California,"  in  line  14  of  that  amendment  of  the 
committee,  I  move  to  insert  these  words : 

Or  at  San  Pedro,  in  said  State,  the  location  of  said  harbor  to  be  determined 
by  an  officer  of  the  Navy,  to  be  detailed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  an  officer 
of  the  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey,  to  be  detailed  by  the  Superintendent  of  said 
Survey,  and  three  experienced  civil  engineers,  skilled  in  riparian  work,  to  be 
appointed  by  the  President,  who  shall  constitute  a  board,  the  decision  of  a 
majority  of  which  shall  be  final  as  to  the  location  of  said  harbor.  It  shall  be 
the  duty  of  said  board  to  make  plans,  specifications,  and  estimates  for  said 
improvement.  Whenever  said  board  shall  have  settled  the  location  and  made 
report  to  the  Secretary  of  War  of  the  same,  with  said  plans,  specifications,  and 
estimates,  then  the  Secretary  of  War  may  make  contracts  for  the  completion 
of  the  improvement  of  the  harbor  so  selected  by  said  board,  according  to  the 
project  reported  by  them,  at  a  cost  not  exceeding  in  the  aggregate  $2,900,000, 
and  $20,000  are  hereby  appropriated,  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  necessary  to 
be  used  for  the  expenses  of  the  board  and  payment  of  the  civil  engineers  for 
their  services,  the  amount  to  be  determined  by  the  Secretary  of  War. 

Mr.  VEST.  I  will  suggest  to  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
that  he  insert  the  words  "  who  shall  personally  examine  the  localities 
named." 

Mr.  FRYE.  I  will  say  "  who  shall  constitute  a  board  and  per 
sonally  examine." 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  presume  the  Senator  from  Missouri  has  in  view 
what  he  thinks  is  the  necessity  of  re-sounding  this  harbor. 

Mr.  VEST.  Yes.  I  do  not  want  this  work  done  by  proxy,  as 
has  been  done  in  other  cases. 


SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE.  385 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  will  suggest  that  the  Coast  and  Geodetic  Sur 
vey  charts,  upon  which  navigation  is  conducted  on  that  coast,  are 
presumably  accurate.  However,  I  only  make  that  statement  because 
I  do  not  think  it  is  just  to  criticise  General  Craighill  for  not  making 
soundings,  which  had  been  officially  done  by  the  Coast  and  Geodetic 
Survey.  Still,  I  am  not  objecting  to  the  re-soundings. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  suggest  to  the  chairman  of  the  committee  that 
$20,000  is  not  an  adequate  sum  for  that  kind  of  work. 

Mr.  FRYE.  The  Senator  from  Iowa  [Mr.  ALLISON]  was  just 
making  that  same  suggestion  to  me. 

Mr.  TELLER.  I  want  to  say  that  if  the  President  of  the  United 
States  selects  three  engineers  such  as  he  ought  to  select,  each  one  of 
them  should  have  at  least  $10,000  for  that  work. 

Mr.  FRYE.     Suppose  we  make  the  amount  $40,000? 

Mr.  TELLER.     I  should  say  it  ought  to  be  at  least  $50,000  — 
say  "  to  be  used   in  the   discretion  of  the   President,   not  exceeding 
$50,000." 

Mr.  FRYE.     Very  well. 

Mr.  PERKINS.  I  would  also  suggest  to  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Commerce  that  there  should  be  limit  of  time  within 
which  the  matter  shall  be  determined.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that 
it  should  be  like  Tennyson's  brook,  to  run  on  forever.  I  think  there 
should  be  a  limit  of  time. 

Mr.  FRYE.  No;  I  do  not  think  there  should  be.  I  think  the 
board  should  have  all  the  time  they  need  to  settle  this  question.  There 
is  one  thing  above  everything  else  I  wish,  and  that  is  a  settlement 
of  this  vexed  question. 

Mr.  BERRY.  I  wish  to  remark  to  the  Senator  from  Maine  that 
it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  fairer  and  better  to  take  two  of  the 
members  of  the  board  from  civil  life  and  two  from  the  Coast  and 
Geodetic  Survey,  or  one  from  the  Coast  and  Geodetic  Survey  and  one 
from  the  Navy.  It  occurs  to  me  that  it  would  be  better  to  have  more 
public  officials  on  the  commission  who  are  responsible  to  the  Govern 
ment.  I  simply  make  the  suggestion  as  giving  my  views  about  it. 

Mr.  FRYE.  I  am  obliged  to  the  Senator;  but  I  -have  all  day 
been  running  this  over  in  my  mind,  and  as  a  conclusion,  a  fair  con 
clusion  of  this  contest,  I  finally  have  settled  down  upon  this  proposi 
tion.  As  a  matter  of  course,  I  have  yielded  a  good  deal  in  doing  so. 
The  Senator  from  California  is  practically  having  his  own  way,  when 
he  says  he  simply  asks  an  entirely  impartial  board. 

Mr.  BERRY.  Is  the  proposition  satisfactory  to  the  Senator  from 
California  ? 

Mr.  WHITE.  I  have  stated  that  I  would  accept  any  impartial 
board,  and  I  usually  stick  to  what  I  say,  or  try  to  do  so,  and  I  believe 
the  President  of  the  United  States  —  I  not  only  believe,  but  I  know  — 
will  do  his  duty  in  this  regard.  If  I  had  my  way  about  it  I  would 
rather  have  one  Army  engineer,  but  I  see  no  reason  to  think  that  this 
will  not  be  an  absolutely  impartial  board.  I  think  all  the  other  boards 
have  been  impartial ;  but  this  is  an  endeavor  to  reach  a  conclusion 
satisfactory  to  the  Senate,  and  I  will  adhere  to  what  I  stated.  I  have 
consulted  with  those  who  agree  with  me  about  this  matter,  with  as 
many  as  I  could  talk  to  about  it,  and  it  seems  to  be  the  general  impres 
sion  that  I  should  accept  the  amendment.  While  I  have  my  prefer 
ences,  as  stated,  I  do  not  wish  to  interpose  any  objection  to  the  accom- 


386  SPEECHES  OF  STEPHEN  M.  WHITE. 

plishment  of  a  plan  which  is  a  concession  by  the  Senator  from  Maine 
and  also  a  concession  by  the  Senator  from  California.  I  think  we  can 
afford  to  stand  upon  it. 

Mr.  FRYE.     I  offer  the  amendment,  then,  Mr.  President. 

Mr.  PASGO.  Mr.  President,  as  one  of  the  minority  of  the  com 
mittee  who  objected  to  the  majority  report,  I  am  entirely  in  favor  of 
this  amendment,  and  I  am  very  glad  that  the  Senator  from  Maine 
[Mr.  FRYE],  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  has  conceded  so  much. 
There  never  was  a  time  during  the  sessions  of  the  committee  when  the 
minority  of  the  committee  would  not  have  joined  with  him  in  obtain 
ing  what  we  all  regarded  as  a  fair  and  impartial  board;  and  I  think 
the  amendment  he  now  offers  to  us  proposes  just  such  a  scheme  as 
that.  For  one  I  hope  that  it  will  be  adopted  and  that  this  plan  of  set 
tlement  will  be  agreed  upon  by  the  Senate. 


OF  THE  \ 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL.  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $T.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


;;.  ,; 


OEC23  19! 


JUL  i  0  I 


LD  21-100m-7,'40 (6936s) 


I  UOOO 


U.  C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


181438 


